Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta Etc. Judgement ... on 26 November, 2011

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc.                                      Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

                    IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
              SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C. ACT) (CBI)­II, ROHINI, DELHI

CC No. 16/2010
CBI Versus (1) Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta
               S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder
               Prop. M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech
               R/o 75, Behra Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
               New Delhi.
           (2) Neeru Pulasaria
               W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta
               Prop. M/s Global Marketing Co.
               R/o 75, Behra Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
               New Delhi.
           (3) Tarun Kumar Aggarwal
               S/o Sh. R. K. Aggarwal
               R/o 11 & 12, Azad Colony, Budh Vihar,
               Phase­II, Delhi.
           (4) K. C. Kumaraswamy
               S/o Late Sh. S. K. Chandrasekharan
               R/o A­202, Dhanshreya, Sector­17,
               Syndicate Bank Officers Qtrs., Vashi Mumbai.
           (5) Gian Chand Khanna
               S/o Sh. R. C. Khanna
               R/o W­103, Greater Kailash, Part­I, New Delhi.
           (6) P. K. Singh (already discharged on 2.2.2007 by
                Hon'ble High Court in  Crl. Revision Petition No.
               619/2006)
               S/o Sh. Vikram Singh
               R/o 114, Nyadar Ganj, Dadri District,
               Gautam Budh Nagar, U. P.



CC No. 16/2010                                                                                        Page 1 / 143
 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc.                                      Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

Date of conclusion of arguments : 11.11.2011
Date of judgement : 26.11.2011

JUDGEMENT

1. Prosecution story as unfolded during the trial is that Smt. Neeru Pulsaria, Proprietor of M/s Global Marketing Co. opened a Current A/c no. 2460 on 26.12.1998 with Syndicate Bank, Guru Teg Bhadur Nagar Branch, Delhi. Neeru Pulsaria above named applied for over draft limit of Rs.9 Lacs on 1.3.2000 for trading in toffees, soft drinks, confectionaries, etc and demanded the said loan against stock in trade and Vikas Cash Certificate of Rs.5 Lacs. The loan proposal was processed and recommended by Sh.E.P.Gopinathan (PW7) the then Asstt. Manager of the Branch and which was sanctioned by Sh.D. Padmanathan on 6.3.2000, the then Chief Manager of the Branch.

2. Smt. Neeru Pulsaria being Proprietor M/s Global Marketing Co. pledged a bogus sale deed of a property bearing no. 91, Block - W, G.K.­II, Village Bahapur, N. Delhi­110048 in the bank showing its assessing value of Rs.4.70 Crores. The said bogus sale deed submitted in the bank was in the name of one Ashok Kumar Jain (PW3) S/o Sh.Shirpal Jain R/o 6, Rohtak CC No. 16/2010 Page 2 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Road, N. Delhi. An un­ registered equitable mortgage was created by the bank on 12.9.2000 besides taking Vikas Cash Certificates of Rs.5 Lacs as security earlier by the bank.

3. It is alleged that Smt. Neeru Pulsaria in conspiracy with her husband Sh.Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, Sh.Tarun Aggarwal and G.C.Khanna who impersonated as Ashok Kumar Jain, owner of the landed property as fully described above pledged the same in the bank for obtaining credit facility. Accused G.C.Khanna, who falsely represented himself as Ashok Kumar Jain in the bank, mentioned his address in the loan documents as E­37, Kalaji, New Delhi instead of 6, Rohtak Road, New Delhi. In order to substantiate the ownership of the said landed property Smt.Neeru Pulsaria also submitted bogus MCD tax receipts etc showing Ashok Kumar Jain as owner of the said property. Neeru Pulsaria Proprietor of M/s Global Marketing Co. applied for enhancement of the above limit to Rs.17 Lacs against the security of Stock in Trade and unregistered equitable mortgage of the property already mortgaged to the bank. This enhancement proposal was processed by E.P.Gopinathan, the then Asstt. Manager and recommended the same for enhancement of the limit as claimed. The said limit was CC No. 16/2010 Page 3 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 sanctioned by accused K.C.Kumarswami, the then Sr. Manager of the Branch only on the recommendation of E.P.Gopinathan, the then Asstt. Manager by taking the guarantee of Ashok Kumar Jain (as impersonated by G. C. Khanna).

4. Accused A.K.Mehandiratta opened a SB A/c No. 27642 in Guru Teg Bhadur Nagar, Delhi branch of Syndicate Bank. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta being the proprietor of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech subsequently opened a Current A/c NO. 2591 on 1.11.2000 in the said bank. On 21.11.2000, Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta applied for a Current Loan of Rs.36.65 Lacs for the purpose of Infotech and E­Commerce Project Training and Website Designing at FF­1A, 11­B, Pusa Road, New Delhi by offering the property bearing no.91, Block ­ W, Greater Kailash­ II, Village Bahapur, N. Delhi, which was already mortgaged with the bank in the loan case of accused Neeru Pulsaria. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta fraudulently submitted GPA, Special Power of Attorney and 'Will' made by G. C. Khanna, falsely representing himself as Ashok Kumar Jain in his favour for obtaining credit facilities from the bank. These documents were signed by Sh.Tarun Kumar Aggarwal as witness. Accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta also proposed to hypothecate the equipments to be purchased. This loan proposal was processed CC No. 16/2010 Page 4 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 by Sh.K.C.Kumarswamy, the then Sr. Manager of the Branch and recommended for sanction of term loan of Rs.33.60 lacs to Regional officer of the Bank, Delhi. However, Regional Office sanctioned in Principle a term loan of Rs.24 Lacs vide letter dated 22.1.2001 and final sanction was accorded vide letter bearing no. DRO/CW/SL­406/163/2001/JD dated 24.1.2001 and the said facility was released on 25.1.2001 by taking the joint guarantee of an Ashok Kumar Jain, Sh.Tarun Aggarwal and Smt. Neeru Pulsaria in the said loan account. Both the accounts became NPA on 1.4.2002.

5. It is alleged that Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, Proprietor of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech and his wife Smt.Neeru Pulsaria, Proprietor of M/s Global Marketing Co. being the Principal borrowers alongwith guarantor Tarun Kumar Aggarwal, Gyan Chand Khanna and K.C.Kumarswamy, Sr. Manager, GTB Branch of Syndicate Bank cheated the aforesaid bank during the year 2000­01 by obtaining credit facilities from the said bank on the basis of forged/bogus property documents and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank to the extent of Rs.

54.31 Lacs approx.

(excluding interest) and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 5 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

6. Investigation further disclosed that K. C. Kumaraswamy in conspiracy with Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and Neeru Pulassria falsely informed the Zonal Manager, Law & Claim Section, Zonal Office, New Delhi vide his letter dated11.9.2000 tht he had inspected the property on 9.8.2000 and also obtained the latest tax receipt upto 31.3.2000 and affidavit as per circular no. 106/99. Investigation disclosed that the stamp paper on which the affidavit was sworn by Ashok Kumar Jain, was purchased from the vendor on 12.9.2000, which goes to show that the party submitted the affidavit after K. C. Kumaraswamy wrote the aforesaid letter to ZO. Investigation revealed that K. C. Kumaraswamy did not make any discreet enquiry as required in circular no. 106/99 dated 18.6.99 issued by Head Office of Syndicate Bank. K. C. Kumaraswamy in connivance with Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta requested the Zonal Office to accord required clearance for creating unregistered equitable mortgage (UREM) in respect of the said property.

7. Investigation has disclosed that UREM of the property bearing no. W­91, GK­II, Delhi was created on 12.9.2000. The required entry in this regard was made in the equitable mortgage Register of Asaf Ali Road Branch of Syndicate Bank CC No. 16/2010 Page 6 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 because the GTB Nagar Branch was not maintaining any such register. G. C. Khanna impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar Jain and executed the bank documents on 12.9.2000. K. C. Kumaraswamy in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy with the party released the VCCs of Rs.4 lacs and Rs.1 lac respectively, held as security against the limit of Rs.9 lacs on 20.9.2000, though there is no written request from the party, available in bank's record.

8. Investigation further disclosed that the sale deed of the property W­91, GK­II, New Delhi submitted by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and Neeru Pulassaria in connivance with K. C. Kumaraswamy in the bank was forged. Investigation disclosed that father of Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain r/o 6, Rohtak Road, Delhi purchased this property from DLF Ltd. in the name of his son in 1973 and since then the property has always remained in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain only. sh. Ashok Kumar Jain real owner of the property has never mortgaged this property with Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar Branch, New Delhi for any loan. Investigation also disclosed that Gian Chand Khanna in conspiracy with Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and Neeru Pulassria impersonated as "Ashok Kumar Jain" and mentioned his address CC No. 16/2010 Page 7 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 as E­37, Kalkaji, Delhi­19 in a letter to the bank to hand over the aforesaid forged title deed of property as well as and on other bank documents viz. AF­565 assets and liabilities form and AF­468 etc. Investigation revealed that no person by the name Ashok Kumar Jain resided at the said address during the relevant period. Investigation disclosed that as per the bank guidelines, K. C. Kumaraswamy, Branch Manager ought to have written a registered letter to Ashok Kumar Jain of E­37, Kalkaji, Delhi or at 6, Rohtak Road, Delhi (the address mentioned in the sale deed) to confirm proof of residence as well as his willingness to offer his property as collateral security. K. C. Kumaraswamy in conspiracy with Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and Neeru Pulassria did not write any letter, facilitated the borrowers to present G. C. Khanna as "Ashok Kumar Jain" and to submit the forged sale deed in the bank. Investigation further disclosed that Sh. Vinod Kumar Chawla, Law Officer in the Zonal Office vide his letter dated 7.8.2000 directed the branch to physically verify the property and comply with all the requirement of HQ circular no. 106/99. Investigation further disclosed that in furtherance to the said criminal conspiracy K. C. Kumaraswamy mentioned in the form ADV­84 dated 9.8.2000 that he had visited the plot no. 91, GK­II, Delhi.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 8 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 However investigation disclosed that K. C. Kumaraswamy never visited Plot No. W­91, GK­II, Delhi. Investigation disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy K. C. Kumaraswamy, Branch Manager did not obtain any identify proof from G. C. Khanna who impersonated as "Ashok Kumar Jain" as required by bank circular no.155­2000­BC dated 16.8.2000. Investigation further disclosed that obtaining the identity proof from the owner of the third party was all the more necessary as G. C. Khanna was not having any bank account in GTB Nagar Branch of Syndicate Bank.

9. Investigation revealed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy Ajay Kumar and Neeru Pulassria submitted bogus/fake 'WILL' executed on 14.9.2000 by G. C. Khanna impersonating as "Ashok Kumar Jain' r/o E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi in the bank in which he has bequeathed that his property at @­91, GK­II, New Delhi shall go and devolve in favour of A. K. Mehandiratta. This 'WILL' had been witnessed by Tarun Kumar Aggarwal and Pramod Kumar Singh (P. K. Singh), Advocate, Old Court, Kashmieri Gate, Delhi. In the 'WILL', S­396700 had been mentioned as passport number of Ashok Kumar Jain and the photograph of G. C. Khanna had been CC No. 16/2010 Page 9 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 affixed. Investigation disclosed tht his passport number belongs to Dr. K. S. Bhimwal r/o E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and Neeru Pulassaria also submitted bogus/fake GPA (General Power of Attorney) and SPA (Special Power of Attorney) to the bank, both executed by G. C. Khanna impersonating as "Ashok Kumar Jain" in favour of A. K. Mehandiratta in respect of property at Plot No. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi. On both these documents the photograph of G. C. Khanna as "Ashok Kumar Jain" had been affixed Tarun Kumar Aggarwal and P. K. Singh had witnessed both the bogus documents. The WILL, GPA and SPA were got registered in the office of Sub­Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.

10. Investigation further disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and Neeru Pulassria submitted to the bank bogus/fake MCD tax receipt dated 19.5.2000 in respect of the mortgaged proeperty.

11. Investigation further disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy Mrs. Neeru Pulassria, Prop. Of M/s Global Marketing Co. submitted an application dated 20.9.2000 for enhancement of the SOD facility from Rs.9 lacs to Rs.17 lacs to meet the working capital requirements. The security offered CC No. 16/2010 Page 10 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 against the facility was stock in trade + UREM of the earlier property valued at Rs.4.75 crores. Sh. E. P. Gopinathan, Asstt. Manager processed the party's request. He recommended that the bank may consider the borrower's request for an additional limit of Rs.8 lacs (validity:1 years, upto 30.9.2001). Investigation revealed that at Sl. No. 9 of the process note, under the head "whether account is regular", E. P. Gopinathan wrote "exceedings not regularized". K. C. Kumaraswamy in conspiracy with Neeru Pulassaria and Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta struck off the remarks written by Sh. E. P. Gopinathan and wrote in his own handwriting "party had requested for exceedings for investment in business and we had acceded the request for exceedings in the A/c". K. C. Kumaraswamy, Branch Managar sanctioned the additional SOD limit of Rs.8 lacs to the party on 29.9.2000. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, Neeru Pulassaria and G., C. Khanna who impersonated as Ashok Kumar executed the loan documents on 29.9.2000. Entry regarding extension of charge over the existing UREM in respect of sanction of additional SOD limit was made in the EM register on 17.11.2000.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 11 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

12. Investigation further disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy Neeru Pulassria fraudulently transferred a total amount of Rs.7,55,000/­ on different dates (Rs.3,00,000 on 17.8.2000 vide cheques nos. 854189, 854190, Rs.30,000 on 21.9.2000 vide cheque no. 307484, Rs.2,45,000 vide cheque no. 307488 and Rs.1,80,000/­ on 13.10.2000 vide cheque no. 307492) from the SOD account no. 3481 to the current account no. 2505 of M/s MR Credits Incl. (Prop. A. K. Mehandiratta)

13. Investigation disclosed that the line of business of M/s Global Marketing Co. was trading in confectionary, toffees, soft drinks etc. whereas M/s MR Credits was a financial consultancy firm. The fact that M/s Mr Credits was an associate concern and was in no way connected with the line of business of M/s Global Marketing Co. was well known to K.C. Kumaraswamy, the then Branch Manager. K. C. Kumaraswamy in furtherance to criminal conspiracy with Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and Neeru Pulassria allowed the party to divert the amount of Rs. 7,55,000/­ to M/s MR Credits Inc. Investigation disclosed that the above funds were transferred from the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. to the account of M/s MR Credits not for any genuine trade transactions but for clearing the liabilities of CC No. 16/2010 Page 12 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 M/s MR Credits. Investigation disclosed that K. C. Kumaraswamy in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy allowed the excess drawings in the account of M/s Global of M/s Global Marketing Co. on routine basis against the bank norms prescribed in circular no. 93/07 dated 13.5.97 K. C. Kumaraswamy had shown the purpose of exceedings as clearing of cheque in AR­3014 form whereas it was actually transfer of funds from one account to another account of the same branch. Besides, exceedings allowed in SOD A/c 3481 on 29.9.2000 and 13.10.2000 for transfer of Rs. 2.45 lacs and Rs.1.80 lacs respectively to C/a No. 2505 were not reported in AR­3014 at all. K. C. Kumaraswamy in connivance with Neeru Pulassria and A. K. Mehandiratta, concealed the facts relating to overdrawings and intimated false information with a view to mislead the senior bank officers.

14. Investigation further disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, Prop. Of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech applied for term loan of Rs.36.65 lacs for setting up computer institute for infotech for infotech, e­ commerce and website designing vide his application dated 21.11.2000 in which Ashok Kumar Jain, Tarun Aggarwal and CC No. 16/2010 Page 13 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Smt. Neeru Pulassria were proposed as co­obligants/guarantors. He proposed the security of property at W­91, GK­II, New Delhi and the equipments of the computer institute purchased from the loan. M/s Global Marketing and M/s MR Credit Inc. were shown as sister concerns. Investigation disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy K. C. Kumaraswamy processed the loan application vide his note dated 8.11.2000 (typed) i.e. even before the formal submission of the loan application. K. C. Kumaraswamy has written 23.11.2000in his own hand writing under the typed date (8.11.2000). K. C. Kumaraswamy himself verified the Assets and Liabilities statements of Ajay Kr. Mehandiratta, Neeru Pulassaria and Tarun Aggarwal. He forwarded the proposal to Regional Office (RO) recommending sanction of Rs.33.60 lcas to the party as term loan. Investigation disclosed that Sh. RD Naidu, Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, New Delhi directed the staff to call the branch remarks and to obtain the guidelines from credit wing of Zonal Office. Sh. K. C. Kumaraswamy, Branch Manager vide his letter dated 1.12.2000 clarified the queries raised by the RO. Investigation further disclosed that Sh. Jayadevan, Deputy Chief Officer along with R. K. Aggarwal Chief Officer and K. C. Kumaraswamy visited the unit of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech on CC No. 16/2010 Page 14 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 12.12.2000 and also submitted a unit inspection report. Sh. Jayadevan wrote that we may be permitted to take up the proposal. Investigation revealed that Sh. Aggarwal and Sh. H. P. Shetty discussed the proposal with Sh. R. D. Naidu, RM and it was decided to process the loan application submitted by A. K. Mehandiratta. In furtherance to the criminal conspiracy K. C. Kumaraswamy falsely informed the RO vide his letter dated 29.12.2000 that he had allowed overdrawings in the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. on the request of the party and the same were regularized within stipulated period. He also informed that he had taken all precautions in mortgage of plot no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi. K. C. Kumaraswamy vide his letter dated 15.1.2001 again falsely informed the RO that exceedings were regularized within stipulated period and the exceedings were allowed only for genuine business needs whereas investigation has disclosed that K. C. Kumaraswamy allowed the exceedings in the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. in a routine and casual manner and such exceedings were never regularized.

15. Investigation revealed that total requirement of funds for the fixed assets was assessed by the RO to be Rs.34.40 lacs CC No. 16/2010 Page 15 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 including Rs.16 lacs for the purchase of computers. The party was to provide 30% of the projected cost of the fixed assets i.e. Rs.10.32 lacs from its own resources. Investigation further revealed that a process note dated 19.1.2001 was prepared by C. Jayadevan and R. K. Aggarwal in the RO for sanction of a term loan of Rs.24 lacs to the party to finance the assets of the fixed nature. Against the loan, hypothecation of computers, generators, furniture and EM of property in the name of Ashok Kumar Jain i.e. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi was to be taken as security. Some of the terms and conditions mentioned in the process note to be complied with by the branch were as under :­

a) Branch has to confirm and submit proof of the party having invested atleast Rs5 lacs in the project to ensure exposure norms.

b) Branch shall confirm end use of the loan amount by obtaining proper quotations, margin, specific releases and obtention of bills/receipts.

c) Additional charge on the existing UREM to be created on the property situated at W­91, GK­II, New Delhi in he name of Ashok Kumar Jain by obtainign annexure­86 (Revised) and ger the same noted in the UREM register with the branch CC No. 16/2010 Page 16 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 where the original UREM was created.

d) Latest tax paid receipts of the mortgaged property to be obtained.

e) Branch has to confirm the production of margin money as per project report by the applicant.

f) Branch has to submit branch Compliance Certificate along with the certificate of compliance of terms of sanction and copies of documents to RO within 7 days of arranging the facilities.

16. Investigation revealed that the process note was put up to H. P. Shetty, Chief Manager on 20.1.2001. S. M. Adiga, AGM recommended that Other Secured loan (OSL) of Rs.24 lacs may be sanctioned only. Finally R. D. Naidu, RM sanctioned the loan on 20.1.2001.

17. Investigation revealed that K. C. Kumaraswamy informed the RO on 23.1.2001 that he had complied with all the pre­ sanction conditions and requested the RO to release the final order. The final sanction order dated 24.1.2001 was issued under the signatures of Sh. H. P. Shetty, Chief Manager, RO after taking approval from Regional Manager. Investigation revealed that Ajay Kr. Mehandiratta as Proprietor of M/s Baba CC No. 16/2010 Page 17 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Bhaiyan Webtach and Smt. Neeru Pulassria, Tarun Aggarwal and G. C. Khanna, posing himself as Ashok Kr. Jain, as guarantors executed the loan documents on 25.1.2001. K. C. Kumaraswamy filled the forms/documents in his own hand writing. The loan amount was released after the documents were executed by the party. Investigation revealed that a OSL account no. 2012007 was opened on 25.1.2001 in the name of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech, Prop. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta.

18. Investigation disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy A. K. Mehandiratta requested the branch on 25.1.2001 to release Rs.11,48,000/­ and Rs.54,479/­ in favour of M/s A to Z Computer 15/A, 2nd Floor East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and M/s Classic Decor respectively. The branch issued the pay orders of the said amounts on 25.1.2001 and 9.2.2001 respectively. He again requested the branch on 9.2.2001 to release Rs.2,96,800/­ in favour of M/s Akansha Enterprises. Investigation revealed that the pay order for Rs.2.96,800/­ was credited to the c/a of M/s Akansha Enterprises in Old Rajendra Nagar Branch of Syndicate Bank, New Delhi on 9.2.2001.

19. Investigation further disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy A. K. Mehandiratta fraudulently opened c/a CC No. 16/2010 Page 18 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 no. 11489 in the name of M/s Class Decor (Prop. A. K. Mehandiratta) at Bank of India, New Friends Colony, New Delhi on 29.1.2001 and deposited the pay order for Rs.9,54,479/­ in this a/c on 31.1.2001. He withdrew an amount of Rs.1 lac in cash on 1.2.2001 and further got a pay orders for Rs.1,40,000/­ issued in f/o M/s Kedia Great Galeon Ltd. And Rs.7,10,000/­ in f/o M/s MR. Credit Inc. which were later credited to the c/a of M/s Kedia Great Galeon Ltd. with Bank of Baroda, Mathura Road Branch, Delhi on 8.2.2001 and M/s MR Credit Inc. in Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar Branch, Delhi on 3.2.2001 respectively. Investigation revealed that the debit balance in the a/c of M/s MR Credit Inc. was Rs.7,06,978/­ and the amount of Rs.7,10,000/­ was transferred to clear the liabilities in this a/c. Investigation further revealed that except for the aforesaid transactions, no other major transaction took place in this account which is inactive since 24.2.2001.

20. Investigation further disclosed that the pay order for Rs.

11,48,000/­ issued in f/c M/s A to Z Computer was credited to its current account in Canara Bank, East Patel Nagar Branch, Delhi. The said pay order was discounted by the bank and an amount of Rs.5,98,898/­ was credited on 25.1.2001 and the rest CC No. 16/2010 Page 19 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 of the amount of s.5,48,0000/­ was credited on 29.1.2001. Investigation further revealed that Ajay Kumar Malhotra received supply of computers and accessories from M/s A to Z Computer worth Rs.5,48,000/­ and asked Smt. Anjula Malhotra, Prop. Of M/s A to Z Compute to return the balance amount. As a result Smt. Anjula Malhotra issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/­ dated 25.1.2001 in favour of Ajay Kumar, who was got encashed at East Patel Nagar Branch of Canara Bank by Ajay Kumar Mahdndiratta. She also made a Demand Draft Rs. 2,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Bharat Indhan Udyog, Kolkata on the directions of A. K. Mehandiratta. Investigaion revealed that A. K. Mehandiratta repaid the amount taken by him from Sh. Satyanarayan Gupta Prop. M/s Bharat Indhan Udyog Limited vide this draft. Investigation disclosed that A. K. Mehandiratta got the work of cable networking done by M/s A to Z Computer at his centre for Rs.10,500/­ vide bill no. 1042 dated 2.12.2000. A. K. Mehandiratta tampered with this bill and altered the amount to Rs.16,72,494/­ and submitted its photocopy to the bank K. C. Kumaraswamy in collusion with A. K. Mehandiratta accepted the photocopy of the bill against the bank norms and practice.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 20 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

21. Investigation further disclosed that A. K. Mehandiratta submitted two bogus receipts for Rs.4,00,000/­ dated 22.1.2001 and for Rs.11,48,000/­ dated 25.1.2001 as a proof for payment made by him to M/s A to Z Computers. Mrs. Anjula Malhotra has denied her signatures on these receipts. These bogus receipts were submitted by A. K. Mehandiratta to show that he had actually purchased computers worth about Rs.16 lacs as shown in his project report. Investigation further disclosed that similarly, A. K. Mehandiratta submitted two more bogus receipts for Rs.4,10,000/­ dated 22.1.2001 and for Rs.9.54,479 dated 25.1.2001 allegedly signed by Ms Seema Malik, employee of M/s Classic Decor as a proof of payments made by him to M/s Classic Decor. Ms Seema Malik has denied her signatures on the said receipts. Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) has also confirmed and stated that alleged signatures were not of Ms. Seema Malik. These bogus receipts were submitted by A. K. Mehandiratta to the bank to show proper and use of the funds as well as to prove the contribution of margin money by him, as stipulated in the sanction order.

22. Investigation further disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy K. C. Kumaraswamy accepted the blank CC No. 16/2010 Page 21 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 AF­442 forms which contain the details of material supplied by the supplier to the party, purportedly signed by the party and the suppliers of goods. Investigation disclosed that the Smt. Anjula Malhotra, Pro. Of M/s A to Z Computer and Ms Seema Malik, an employee in M/s Classi Decor never signed the said forms and their signatures were forged. Investigation disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy K. C. Kumaraswamy neither himself inspected the material purchased by the party out of the bank's funds nor directed any branch official to conduct such inspection. The first such inspection was conducted only on 18.8.2001 i.e. much after the loan amount was allegedly utilized by the party. Investigation disclosed that K.C. Kumaraswamy due to his connivance with the party made no efforts to ensure the proper and use of the funds. As per bank's procedure the pay order/demand draft issued in favour of the supplier should be forwarded to the supplier directly by the Branch Manager. Investigation disclosed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy K.C. Kumaraswamy handed over the draft to Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta instead of sending the same to M/s A to Z Computer and M/s Classic Decor.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 22 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

23. Investigation revealed that additional charge over the existing EM of the property of plot no. W­91, KG­II, New Delhi was created on 12.5.2001 against the term loan of Rs.24 lacs, just before the relieving of K. C. Kumaraswamy from the branch, whereas, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction order, the branch was to send a compliance report to the RO within 7 days after release of funds, including the creation of additional charge on the existing UREM. Investigation also revealed that K. C. Kumaraswamy wrote a letter dated 21.5.2001 addressed to A. K. Mehandiratta regarding the repayment of the overdue installments and other charges in respect of OSL (Other Secured Loan) of Rs.24 lacs, a copy of this letter was also sent to Ashok Kumar Jain At E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The letter sent to Ashok Kumar Jain came back to the bank with the remark that no person by this name stayed at this address. Investigation further disclosed that Sh. Pradeep Kumaraswamy S/o Sh. K. C. Kumaraswamy was working in M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech during the period when initial work of starting the institution was going on.

24. Investigation disclosed that SOD account in the name of M/s Global Marketing Co. was declared NPA on 7.2.2001 and the total o/s amount was Rs.28,84,878/­ including the interest CC No. 16/2010 Page 23 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 on that day. Investigation disclosed that Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta did not pay any installment and the OSL account in the name of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech was declared NPA on 21.9.2001 and the total outstanding amount was Rs.33,15,403/­ including the interest, on that day. The accused persons cheated the Syndicate Bank and caused wrongful loss of s.62 lacs Approx. and corresponding gain to themselves by committing the above said offences.

25. On the basis of aforesaid facts/source information, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, chargesheet was filed on 10.7.2006.

26. Charges for the offence punishable under Section 120 B/419/420/467/468/471 IPC and Sections 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act were framed against accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A­1) and Neeru Pulsaria (A­2), Tarun Kumar Aggarwal (A­3), Gian Chand Khanna (A­4), K.C.Kumarswami (A­5) and P.K.Singh (A­6). Substantive charges were also framed against the accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta under Section 420/467/468 and 471 IPC and further charge under Section 420/471 IPC was framed against accused Neeru Pulsaria whereas charge also framed against CC No. 16/2010 Page 24 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 accused Tarun Kumar Aggarwal for the substantive offence under section 420/467 IPC. Accused Gian Chand Khanna was also charged for the substantive offence under Section 419/467/471 IPC. Charge also framed against accused K.C.Kumarswami for the substantive offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Substantive charges against accused P.K.Singh under Section 467 IPC to which they pleaded innocence and claimed trial. However, accused P.K.Singh was discharged vide order 5.5.2008.

27. In order to prove its case, Central Bureau of Investigation has examined as many as 49 witnesses in all. Let me state in brief, the statements made by the prosecution witnesses:

28. PW ­1 Sh.Kamal Vinayak was maintaining a current A/c in the Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar Branch, Delhi­9. He proved the Account Opening Form as Ex. PW 1/1 stating that he introduced the current A/c No. 2460 opened by Neeru Pulsaria at the instance of Ranjan Verma. He also identified the photograph of accused Neeru Pulsaria pasted on the Account Opening Form and her signatures including Specimen Signatures appearing on Specimen Signature Card and proved CC No. 16/2010 Page 25 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 the same as Ex.PW 1/2.

29. PW­2 Jang Bhadur had stated to have been residing at W­91, Greater Kailash­II, New Delhi belonging to Ashok Kumar Jain for the 11 years while working as Chowkidar there. He further stated after having seen the accused persons present in the court that none of them was his employer nor they had turned up at the aforesaid address for any verification as he used to remain present there for the whole time. After having seen GPA, SPA and Will executed by Ashok Kumar Jain, he stated that photographs pasted at point on these documents do not belong to his employer Ashok Kumar Jain.

30. PW­3 Ashok Kumar Jain deposed that he purchased the property bearing no. W­91, Greater Kailash­II, N. Delhi from DLF, United Ltd in the year 1973 after making full and final payment. The said property is in his possession since then. He further deposed that he had never mortgaged the said property with any bank nor sold any part of this property to any person and even nor stood guarantor in the Bank. It is testified that the letter dated 28.4.2000 vide which the title deed of the property was handed over, does not bear his signature. The said letter stands proved as Ex.PW 3/1. It is further testified that Property Tax bill issued by MCD was not issued to him in CC No. 16/2010 Page 26 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 respect of the abovesaid property. Affidavit dated 12.9.2000 does not bear his signature and same is proved as Ex.PW 3/2. Sale Deed dated 16.6.1973 proved as Ex.PW 3/3 does not belong to him as the original Title Deed of the property is with him. He proved the original title deed as Ex.PW 3/4 ( original seen and returned ). He had never executed any document with the bank by proving D­38 as Ex.PW 3/5, he stated that it does not bear his signature. Similarly, D­53 a letter addressed to the Branch Mangar, GTB Nagar does not bear his signature, even does not contain his house address and the said letter is proved as Ex.PW 3/6. Similarly, document D­54 regarding confirmation of Title Deeds does not bear his signature and proved the same as Ex. PW 3/7. Document D­79 i.e. stamp paper of Rs.2/­ stands proved as Ex.PW 3/8 as the same also does not bear his signature. Hypothecation deed of machinery/vehicles/tractors/power tillers/consumer durables, etc. also does not bear his signature and proved the same as Ex.PW 3/9. Document D­80 [Form No. AF­468 (OG­48) executed by G.C.Khanna impersonating himself as Ashok Kumar Jain on 25.1.2001] proved as Ex.PW 3/10. Document D­82 & D­83 ( letters sent to Branch Manager, GTB Branch by G.C.Khanna impersonating himself as Ashok Kumar Jain on CC No. 16/2010 Page 27 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 25.1.2001 ) proved as Ex.PW 3/11 and Ex.PW 3/12 respectively which do not bear his signatures.

It is further testified that he had never executed any General Power Attorney Ex.PW 3/13, Special Power of Attorney Ex.PW 3/14 and Will Ex.PW 3/15 all dated 14.9.2000 in favour of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, all these do not bear his photographs nor signatures thereof. Sale Deed attached with document (D­107) belongs to his property and the same stands proved as Ex.PW 3/16. He received two notices from the Syndicate Bank in the year 2002 which he had brought with him and the copy of these notices are proved as Ex.PW 3/17 and Ex.PW 3/18. He also proved the photo state copy of his reply dated 2.8.2002 as Ex. PW 3/19. It is also testified that he does not know any of the accused persons present in the court.

31. PW 4 Sh.Charan Singh was working at R.K.Puram in Property Tax department and his duty was to prepare the bill in respect of the Property Tax. He stated that he had prepared the Property Tax bill bearing Ledger no. 510 and Folio no. 149 pertaining to W­91, G.K.­II, N.Delhi was prepared by him. He also deposed about the discrepencies in the said bill Ex.PW 4/1 at portions encircled in Red mark A to A and mark B to B which were not in his handwriting and the stamp affixed at portion CC No. 16/2010 Page 28 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 mark C to C was not affixed by him. He recognized his signature on the bill Ex. PW 4/1.

32. PW 5 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta was carrying a business of photo copier under the name and style of M/s Kunal Electrostate during the year 2001 and he was having his current A/c no. 2105 in the Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar Branch, N. Delhi and he was having daily dealing transactions with the bank. He had introduced the A/c No. 2591, opened in the name of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech at the asking of accused K.C.Kumarswamy as he was known to accused A.K.Mehandiratta being proprietor of the said firm. He has proved the Account Opening Form as Ex.PW 5/1 by identifying his signature thereon at point A. He also correctly identified accused K.C.Kumarswamy present in the court.

33. PW 6 Sh. Ambuj Jain deposed that he had purchased the property bearing no.E­37, Kalkaji including basement from one Sh.Baldev Raj Bhudhiraja, Builder and the said property belongs to him. He had further deposed that the said property was given on rent to Sh. Sh.Sheetal Sardana and its partners in the year 2000 which was vacated by them in the year 2001. It is also stated that he did not have any plot at the address of WZ­91, G.K.­II, N.Delhi and never stood guarantor either for CC No. 16/2010 Page 29 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta or Neeru Pulsaria with the Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar Branch, Delhi. He deposed that no person by the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain had ever resided at E­37, Kalkaji by stating that some bank officials had come to him 3­4 years back and asked about whether he had given any guarantee for Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and Neeru Pulsaria and he had flatly refused regarding the same, however, he had received one letter in the name of A.K.Jain which destroyed being not related to him.

34. PW 7 Sh. E.P.Gopinathan had joined Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar Branch in the month of May 1998 as Asstt. Manager and remained there upto May 2003. He was posted in the Advances Department in the month of June, 1999 and his duty was to collect loan application, processing of loan proposals, etc. He had stated that he had dealt with the account of M/s Global Marketing Co and M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech. He had further stated that M/s Global Maketing Co. was being run by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria who was having Saving Bank A/c in her individual capacity since 1994. He had proved the Account Opening Form pertaining to A/c no. 2460 ( already Ex.PW 1/1) which was opened by Smt. Neeru on 23.12.1998 and also proved specimen signature card (already Ex.PW 1/2). He CC No. 16/2010 Page 30 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 proved the Account Opening Form pertaining to A/c no.2505 as Ex.PW 7/1 which was opened by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta being proprietor M/s M.R.Credits on 14.12.1999 on the introduction of Smt. Neeru Pulsaria as Proprietor of M/s Global Marketing Co. He further proved specimen Signature Card Ex.Pw 7/2 and photo graph of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta.

The application in this regard was moved by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria as Introducer for opening of the A/c in the name of M/s M.R.Credits on 14.12.1999 and the said application is proved as Ex.PW 7/3. He proved the specimen signatures card as Ex. PW 7/4 relating to the account of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech opened by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta on 1.1.2001. Account Opening Form pertaining to Saving Bank A/c No. 27642 Ex.PW 7/5 which was opened by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta by identifying his signatures and photographs at points A and B respectively. Specimen Signature card pertaining to the aforesaid A/c No. 27642 as Ex.PW 7/6 which was introduced by Sh.Rajan Verma, Bank official. He proved the statement of account of M/s M.R.Credits, proprietor Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta for the period 4.5.1999 to 7.3.2002 is Ex.PW 7/7. He proved the application dated 1.3.2000 Ex.PW 7/8 moved by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria being its M/s Global Marketing Co. for CC No. 16/2010 Page 31 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 requirement of working capital.

He further proved the enclosure documents with the said application by identifying the signature of Smt. Neeru Pulsair at Assets and Liabilities of individuals dated 1.3.2000 as Ex.PW 7/9 and also identifies his own signatures at point B and that of Smt. Padmanabhan at point C. He further stated that information given in Ex.PW 7/9 was filled up by him as per Smt.Neeru Pulsaria.

He had proved the statement of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta as Ex.PW 7/10. He further proved that information given in Ex.PW 7/10 was filled up by him as per Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta.

He proved the Balance Sheet as on 31.12.1999 as Ex.PW 7/11 submitted by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria proprietor of M/s Global Marketing Co. He further proved provisional, Trading and Profit & Loss A/c for the period 1.4.1999 to 31.12.1999 as Ex.Pw 7/12 by identifying the signature of Smt. Neeru Pulsaria at point A. He further projected Balance Sheet as on 31.3.2000 signed by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria as Ex.PW 7/13. He also proved the Projected Trading Profit & Loss A/c of M/s Global Marketing Co. signed by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria for the period 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 as Ex.PW 7/14 by identifying her signature at point CC No. 16/2010 Page 32 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 A. he proved the details of fixed assets signed by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria is Ex.PW 7/15 by identifying her signature at point A. He deposed that he had processed the application moved by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria being proprietor M/s Global Marketing Co. vide her process note dated 22.3.2000 as Ex.PW 7/16 by identifying her own signature and that of Sh.Padmanabhan at points A and B respectively. He had stated that M/s Global Marketing Co. had offered VCC 37 425 for Rs.5 Lacs and hypothecation of Stock in Trade. Overdraft facility of Rs.9 Lacs was sanctioned on 6.3.2000 by Sh.D.Padmanabhahan, the then Chief Manager on the letter dated 6.3.2000 ( in the shape of undertaking given by Neeru Pulsaria duly signed by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta) submitted by Smt.Neeru Pulsaria being proprietor of M/s Global Marketing Co., which was addressed to the Manager and stands proved as Ex.PW 7/17.

It is testified that he deposed about the execution of documents by party M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech viz. Hypothecation Deed for goods and money receivables, etc., as Ex. PW 7/18. It is further testified that Ex.PW 7/18 was filled up by him in his own handwriting. He proved the letter of proprietorship given by Smt.Neeru Pulsaria as Ex.PW 7/19 CC No. 16/2010 Page 33 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 which was also filled up by him but signed by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria. Similarly, guarantee agreement was signed by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta stands proved as Ex.PW 7/20. Its columns were filled up by him in his own handwriting, however, the same was signed by accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta at point A on each page in his presence. Stock Declaration given by Neeru Pulsaria under her signature being Director of M/s Global Marketing Co. is Ex. PW 7/21. Its columns were also filled up him under the instructions of Neeru Pulsaria. Consent for charging over due interest was given by Neeru Pulsaria under her signature on 6.3.2000 which is Ex.PW 7/22 and its remaining columns were filled by him.

He proved the seizure memo dated 5.3.2004 as Ex.PW 7/23 and Demand Promissory Note executed by Neeru Pulsaria as Ex.PW 7/24, however, columns of Ex.PW 7/24 were filled up by him. Neeru Pulsaria put her signature after going through the contents thereof. He proved the stock possession declared by Neeru Pulsaria on 5.3.2000 under her signatures to the bank as Ex.PW 7/25. He stated that in response to the facility sanctioned on 6.3.2000 to Smt Neeru Pulsaria offered VCC to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs on 6.3.2000 stands Ex.PW 7/26.

He proved the Statement of A/c of SOD No.3481 of M/s CC No. 16/2010 Page 34 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Global Marketing Co. for the period 6.3.2000 to 9.4.2002 as Ex.PW 7/27. He proved the certified copy of the Legal Opinion dated 11.5.2000 in respect of the mortgage of the free hold property no. 91, Block No. W, G.K.­II, New Delhi owned by Ashok Kumar Jain based upon the legal security report of Sh.Ajant Kumar, Penal Advocate as Ex.PW 7/28.

A letter dated 17.8.2000 addressed to the Sr. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar for substituting of VCC with collateral security deposit of same value as Ex.PW 7/29 by identifying the signature of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta at point A and Smt. Neeru Pulsaria at point B on the aforesaid letter. Similarly, he proved the letter dated 11.9.2000 addressed to the Regional Manger, Law and Claims Section, DZO, N. Delhi under the signature of Sh.K.C.Kumarswami written by him as Ex.PW 7/30. Sh.K.C.Kumarswami has submitted his Inspection Report dated 9.8.2000 in respect of the property as detailed above as Ex.PW 7/31. Property Tax Bill issued by Assessment and Collection Department of MCD in respect of the property bearing no. 91, Block No/­W, G.K.­II, Village Bahapur, N. Delhi which is already Ex.PW 4/1.

He proved the application for enhancement of overdraft CC No. 16/2010 Page 35 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 limit submitted by M/s Global Marketing Co. on 20.9.2000 under the signature of Ms. Neeru Pulsaria as Ex.PW 7/32. He has stated that the contents of the application were filled up by him as per the information provided by the party. The said application was received on 28.9.2000 by Sh.K.C. Kumarswami the then Sr.Branch Manager which is Ex.PW 7/33. He further stated that enhancement of SOD limit was processed by him vide Process note dated 29.9.2000 Ex. PW 7/34. He further stated that in column no.9 of the process note Ex.PW 7/34, he clearly mentioned at point C "exceeding not regularized", but it was struck of by Sh.K.C.Kumarswami, the then Sr. Branch Manager by giving his remarks as party had requested for exceeding for investment in business and we had acceded the request for acceding in the account. He pointed out the said remarks at point B on the Ex.PW 7/34.

A list of title deed deposited as security with Security with Syndicate Bank, GTB Branch, N. Delhi on 12.9.2000 by G.C.Khanna proved as Ex.PW 7/35. Similarly, another copy of the same letter was deposited which stands proved as Ex.PW 7/36. The circular bill no. 106/99/BC/CR/37/CRPPD dated 18.6.1999 issued by the credit department with regard to the CC No. 16/2010 Page 36 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 personal visit of the Manager and to make discrete inquiries in respect of the ownership and possession of that property which is also proved as Ex.PW 7/37. It is stated that Smt. Neeru Pulsaria has submitted assets and liabilities statement under her signature alongwith the application dated 20.9.2000 which is Ex.PW 7/38. Similarly, Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta submitted Assets and Liabilities Statement which is proved as Ex.PW 7/39. Assets and Liabilities statement submitted by Ashok Kumar Jain which was signed by G.C.Khanna accused present in the court and the same is proved as Ex.PW 7/14. Balance Sheet for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.8.2000 submitted by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria being proprietor of M/s Global Marketing Co. and the same is Ex.PW 7/41. Trading and Profit & Loss A/c for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.8.2000 submitted by Smt.Neeru Pulsaria under her signature proved as Ex.PW 7/42. Projected Balance Sheet for the ending year 31.3.2001 submitted by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria under her signature proved as Ex. PW 7/43. Original Balance Sheet as on 31.3.2000 submitted by Neeru Pulsaria under her signature proved as Ex.PW 7/44. Projected Trading and Profit & Loss A/c for the period 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 submitted by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria under her signature and proved the same as Ex.PW 7/45. Smt. Neeru Pulsaria also submitted Company­ CC No. 16/2010 Page 37 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 wise­ Stock possession as on 28.9.2000 under her signature and proved the same as Ex.PW 7/46. The net worth of the unit was assessed by Sh.K.C.Kumarswami, the then Branch Manager in this process note. A joint letter dated 29.9.2000 under the signatures of Neeru Pulsaria and Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta was written to the bank and proved the same as Ex.PW 7/47. The said letter was written after the sanction of credit facility to M/s Global Marketing Co. Sh.Ashok Kumar Jain wrote a letter (already Ex.PW 3/6) to Syndicate Bank, GTG Nagar Branch regarding mortgage on 12.9.2000, the signature on the said letter was made by G.C.Khanna accused present in the court as A.K.Jain. The confirmation of proposal of title deed (already Ex.PW 3/7) by G.C.Khanna was made on 29.9.2000 signing as A.K.Jain. Letter of Authority under the signature of Neeru Pulsaria given on 29.9.2000 to operate the account proved as Ex.PW 7/48. Letter of Proprietorship dated 29.9.2000 signed by Neeru Pulsaria which is proved as Ex.PW 7/49. He proved the Hypothecation Deed for goods and money receivables submitted by Smt. Neeru Pulsaria under her signature as Proprietor of M/s Global Marketing Co. As Ex.PW 7/50. A request letter for overdraft cash credit facility submitted on 29.9.2000 by Smt.Neeru Pulsaria and Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and proved CC No. 16/2010 Page 38 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 the same as Ex.PW 7/51. Demand Promissory Note was executed by Neeru Pulsaria and Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta on 29.9.2000 and proved the same as Ex.PW 7/52.

Term Loan application submitted on 21.11.2000 by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta being proprietor of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech under his signature which is proved as Ex.PW 7/53. In the loan application Ashok Kumar Jain, Neeru Pulsaria and Tarun Aggarwal signed as Guarantors. The signatures of A.K.Jain was made by accused G.C.Khanna present in the court. The application duly certified by Virender Dhawan. Seizure Memo dated 21.8.2003 proved as Ex.PW 7/54. At the time of making a request for Term Loan, Assets and Liabilities Statement of Ashok Kumar Jain submitted in the bank proved as Ex.PW 7/55. Net worth was assessed by the branch Manager, K.C.Kumarswamy. Similarly, Tarun Kumar Aggarwal submitted the assets and liabilities statement in the bank and proved the same as Ex.PW 7/56. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta also submitted his Assets and Liabilities Statement Ex.PW 7/57. Neeru Pulsaria also submitted Assets and Liabilities Statements Ex.PW 7/58. Application for Term Loan was processed and recommended by K.C.Kumarswamy, the then Branch Manager vide processed note CC No. 16/2010 Page 39 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 dated 8/23.11.2000 Ex.PW 7/59. The recommendation of Sh.K.C.Kumarswamy, the then Branch Manager is proved as Ex.PW7/60.A letter dated 1.12.2000 written by K.C.Kumarswamy, the then Sr. Branch Manager under his signatures and proved the same as Ex.pW 7/61. A letter dated nil under the signature of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta written to the Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar Branch, N. Delhi is Ex.PW 7/62. Seizure Memo dated 4..8.2003 proved as Ex.PW 7/63. Certified True Copy of Non­Encumbrance Certificate dated 4.1.2001 issued by Ajant Kumar Advocate in respect of Free Hold Property no. 91, Block ­W, G.K.­II, Village Baha Pur owned by Ashok Kumar Jain and proved by the same as Ex.PW 7/64. Valuation report dated 31.1.2001 submitted by Sh. Suresh Chand Jain in respect of the aforesaid property Ex.Pw 7/65.

A letter dated 29.12.2000 sent by Sh.K.C.Kumarswamy, the then Branch Manager to RM, Regional Office, Credit Wing, N. Delhi and the same is Ex.PW 7/66. Similarly, another letter signed under signature of K.C.Kumarswamy was sent to Regional Manager, Regional Office, Credit Wing, N. Delhi and he proved the same as Ex.PW 7/67. Letter of sanction dated 24.1.2001 was received, signed by the Chief Manager sanction CC No. 16/2010 Page 40 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 note is proved as Ex.PW 7/68. After the sanction, Loan documents were executed in the bank. A letter dated 25.1.2001, issued by the Branch Manager K.C.Kumarswamy under his signature was acknowledged by Neeru Pulsaria, A.K.Jain and Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and proved the same as Ex.PW 7/69. Signature of A.K.Jain was made by G.C.Khanna accused present in the court.

Letter of proprietorship dated 25.1.2001 under the signature of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta is proved as Ex.PW 7/70. Subsequent Mortgage Letter (already Ex.PW 3/12) under the signature of A.K.Jain was given in the bank, however, the signatures of A.K.Jain was made by G.C.Khanna accused present in the court.

A stamp receipt dated 25.1.2000 for Rs.11,48,000/­, Rs. 2,96,800 and Rs.9,54,479/­signed by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta which are proved as Ex.PW 7/71, Ex.PW 7/72 and Ex.PW 7/73 respectively.

Seizure Memo Dated 11.6.2003 is proved Ex.PW 7/74. Pay order No. 881955 dated 25.1.2001 Ex.PW 7/75 issued in favour of M/s Classic Decor for Rs.9,54,479/­, Pay order bearing no. 882053 dated 9.2.2001 for Rs.2,96,800/­ in favour of CC No. 16/2010 Page 41 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Akansha Enterprises, another Pay order bearing no. 881956 dated 25.1.2001 for Rs.11,48,000/­ Ex.PW 7/76 issued in favour of M/s A to Z Computers, all these pay order issued from the A/c of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech being maintained by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta signed by K.C.Kumarswamy, the then Sr. Branch Manager.

A Letter of Delivery of Machinery issued under the signature of M/s Classic Decor was submitted by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and proved the same as Ex.PW 7/77. Another letter of delivery of Machinery issued by A to Z Computers by Ajay Kumar Mehandiaratta under his signatures and submitted the same in the bank which is proved as Ex.PW 7/78.

It is stated that he had conducted the inspection of machinery at 11/F­B, Pusa Road, N. Delhi of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech Ltd and submitted his inspection reports on 18.8.2001 and proved the same as Ex.PW 7/79, Ex.PW 7/80 and Ex.PW 7/81.

Seizure Memo dated 15.7.2003 stands proved as Ex.PW 7/82. Statement of A/c No.2001007 of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech for the period 27.9.2000 to 28.5.2003 proved as Ex.PW 7/83. A cheque No.854190 dated 17.8.2000 issued by CC No. 16/2010 Page 42 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Neeru Pulsaria under her signature in favour of M/s M.R.Credits for Rs.50,000/­ stands proved as Ex.PW 7/84. A cheque No. 854189 dated 17.8.2000 issued by Neeru Pulsaria under her signature in favour of M/s M.R.Credits for Rs.2,50,000/­ stands proved as Ex.PW 7/85. A cheque No.307484 dated 21.9.2000 issued by Neeru Pulsaria under her signature in favour of M/s M.R.Credits for Rs.30,000/­ stands proved as Ex.PW 7/86. A cheque No.307488 dated 29.9.2000 issued by Neeru Pulsaria under her signature in favour of M/s M.R.Credits for Rs.

2,45,000/­ stands proved as Ex.PW 7/87. A cheque No.307492 dated 13.10.2000 issued by Neeru Pulsaria under her signature in favour of M/s M.R.Credits for Rs.1,80,000/­ stands proved as Ex.PW 7/88.

All the exhibits Ex.PW 7/84 to Ex.PW 7/88 were authorised by Sh.K.C.Kumarswamy the then Sr. Branch Manager. A letter dated 3.5.2001 addressed to the Chief Manager, Asaf Ali Road Branch, New Delhi written by K.C.Kumarswamy under his signature in the capacity of Sr. Branch Manager for creation of subsequent charge with respect to property belonging to Ashok Kumar Jain, the said letter is Ex. PW 7/89.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 43 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

35. PW 8 Sh.Anuj Kumar Beotra had conducted valuation report for his company regarding the property bearing no. No. WZ­91, G.K. New Delhi­48 for the company M/s M.R.Credits at the instance of accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta to whom he identified. He stated that he did not receive any letter from Syndicate Bank GTB Nagar, New Delhi. He proved the valuation report as Ex.PW 8/1. In the said Valuation report at point D, reference MRC/MAY '1' was mentioned as per the direction of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta.

He identified the photograph of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta on the Ex.PW 5/1 at point C and stated that he is the same person who contacted him for getting the valuation done for his company.

36. PW 9 Sh.V.P.Aneja deposed about the valuation of the property W­91 G.K. Part­II New Delhi conducted by Anuj Kumar Boetra his junior and the valuation report dated 10.05.2000 already Ex. PW 8/1. He also identified signature of Anuj Boetra at point A and his own signature at point B Sh.VP Aneja at point B and seal at point C of VP Aneja at point C. He further deposed that the valuation of said property which was conducted at instance of Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta who had contacted him CC No. 16/2010 Page 44 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 over telephone in the month of May 2000 for valuation. He also deposed that the valuation of aforesaid property was done for MR Credit that is why at point D he had proved MRC/May­1 on the valuation reportEx. PW 8/1. Valuation of property was done at Prevailing Market Rates.

37. PW 10 Sh. Satinder Pal Singh had stated regarding handing over of documents to the Investigating Officer on 30.07.2003 vide seizure memo Ex. PW 10/1 by identifying his signature thereon at point. He proved the specimen signature card of M/s Akanksha Enterprises situated at 31/27, First floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, as Ex. PW 10/2. He proved the letter dated 30.7.2003 as Ex. PW 10/3 by identifying the signature of Sh. C.V. Bhatt, the then Chief Manager, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi at point A. He further stated that the said letter was given by him to the Investigating Officer which was in respect of Pay order no.882053 dated 09.02.2001 issued in favour of M/s Akanksha Enterprises for Rs.2,96,800/­ and proved the said pay order as Ex. PW 10/4.

He had proved the statement of account of M/s Akanksha Enterprises as Ex. PW 10/5 where the entry of Rs 2,95,746/­ has reflected at point A after collecting charges of Rs. 1,054/­.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 45 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 He further stated that the account opening form of A/c no. 6512 of M/s Akanksha Enterprises was not found available in the bank.

38. PW 11 Sh. Sanjay Chauhan had stated that property tax Bill Ex. PW 4/1 was issued from the MCD, Property Tax department. He further stated that some additions had been made in the property tax Bill Ex. PW 4/1 at points A and B which were neither made by him nor by any other officer of the department. He also stated that stamp affixed at point C does not belong to their department. He identified the signature of Sh. Charan Singh at point B.

39. PW 12 SH. Kailash Chand, the officer of Bank of India, had stated that the seizure memo Ex. PW 12/1 bearing his signature at point A vide which three documents were seized by the IO from him. He further stated that the authorization letter Ex. PW 12/2 bearing signature of Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta at point B for producing the documents to the IO. The signature of Ram Avtar Gupta is identified by him. He deposed that A/c No. 11489 opened in their branch by Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta in the name of his firm under the name and style of M/s Classic Décor. He proved the Account Opening Form Ex.PW 12/03 by identifying the signature of Sh. Ashwani Sharma Deputy CC No. 16/2010 Page 46 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Manager at point C who permitted Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta to open the account on 29.1.2001. He further stated that account was introduced by Sh. HS Bhadana prop of M/s Sky Dart World Wide Express and proved the specimen card as Ex. PW 12/4 by identifying the signature of Ashwani Sharma at point D. He further deposed that the pay order No. 881955 dated 25.01.2001 already Ex.PW 7/75 for Rs. 9,54,479 issued in favour of M/s Classic Décor was deposited in the account on 31.01.2001. He proved the Statement of Account Ex. PW 12/5 by identifying the signature of Sh.Ram Avtar Gupta, the then Deputy Chief Manager at point E. He further proved the relevant entry at point F on Ex. PW 12/5. He had proved a cheque No. 125801 favoring self dated 1.02.2001 for Rs one Lacs was issued by Mr. Mehendiratta and another cheque No. 125803 for a sum of Rs 1,40,150 was issued for getting a draft issued in favour of M/s Kedia Great Gallon Ltd. The pay order Ex. PW 12/6 was issued by Sh. Ashwani Sharma. He further stated that another cheque No. 125802 for a sum of Rs.7,10,355 was issued by Mr. Mehandiratta for getting a draft issued in favour of M/s M.R.Credits. Pay order dated 1.02.2001 Ex. PW 12/7 for Rs.7,10,000/­ was issued by Sh. Ashwani Sharma. He further proved applications for issuance of pay order as Ex. PW 12/8 an CC No. 16/2010 Page 47 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 dEx. PW 12/9 by identifying the signature of Mehendiratta at point J and K. He further stated that the said application were allowed by Ashwani Sharma vide his endorsements Ex. PW 12/10 and Ex. PW 12/11.

He also proved issuance of cheque No. 125804 for a sum Rs.5760 in favour of M/s Hello on 7.02.2001 and cheque No. 125805 for a sum Rs 1650 in favour of Mr. Malhotra on 13.02.2001 and also a deposit Rs 3,20,000 in the said account by A.K.Mehandiratta on 16.2.2001 which was credited in this account on the same date. However, the cheque was returned uncredited on that very day.

40. PW 13 Jagdish Chand had stated that he had joined as Manager in the Asaf Ali Road Branch of Syndicate Bank, New Delhi in the year 2002 and also deposed about the procedure regarding creation of equitable mortgage in the Asif Ali Road Branch of Syndicate Bank New Delhi. He further stated that if any loan is sanctioned qua any property in the area of Delhi, an intimation reaches to the branch. Equitable Mortgage was being registered as per practice of the bank. He had further stated that the letter dated 12.07.2003 handed over to him by the Chief Manager Sh.H.Ramesh Kamat for handing over photocopies Equitable mortgage register pertaining M/s Global CC No. 16/2010 Page 48 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Marketing Company S.No.28/2000. He proved the said letter as Ex.PW 13/A by identifying signature of Sh.H.Ramesh Kamat thereon at point A. He had proved the photocopies Equitable Mortgage Register and a letter addressed to the Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank. GTB Nagar branch, Delhi as Ex.PW 13/B and 13/C by identifying signature of Sh.H.Ramesh Kamat. He stated that registration of Equitable Mortgage pertaining to M/s Global Marketing company took place on 12.09.2000 in respect of a loan of Rs 9 lacs (SOD) which was sanctioned by GTB Nagar Branch, Delhi. He had further deposed about registration of Equitable Mortgage again on 17.11.2000 in respect of sanction of additional limit of Rs.8 Lacs. He further proved that as per words mentioned at point X­1 on the Ex. PW 13/B Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta was shown as proprietor of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtec. He further proved the sanction of loan of Rs 24 Lakh on an additional charge and unregistered equitable mortgage of land in the name of Ashok Kumar Jain situated at W­91, GK Part -II and valued at Rs. 4.4 Crores as per Ex. PW 13/ B and he further proved that there was an additional charge on hypothecation on computers, Generators, Furniture and Fixtures which were to be financed by GTB Nagar Branch Delhi. He has further stated that there are no signatures taken either of CC No. 16/2010 Page 49 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 borrower or representative of the Bank in Equitable Mortgage registered. Even no signatures of representative of the Bank or the borrower on the document were taken vide which Equitable Mortgage was registered. He further stated that chief manager of Asif Ali Road, New Delhi had given confirmation letter of registration of Equitable Mortgage to the concerned Branch of the Bank. He further stated that as per Ex. PW 13/B credit Facility of Rs 17 Lakh was sanctioned to M/s Global Marketing Company.

41. PW 14 Naresh Kumar had stated that in the year 2003, he was posted as Clerk at Canara Bank East Patel Nagar Branch New Delhi, by identifying the seizure memo dated 29.03.2003 (D­143) as Ex. PW­14/A vide which he had handed over documents to CBI by identifying his signature at point A on the said seizure memo. He further stated that the account opening form (D­144) of M/s A to Z Computers was handed over to CBI by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW 14/A. He had proved the account opening form as Ex. PW 14/B by identifying the signature of Sh. Shayam Lal Manager, Canara Bank, East Patel Nagar Branch at point A as he had worked with him and seen him signing and writing in the official course of duties. He further stated that account of M/s A to Z Computers was CC No. 16/2010 Page 50 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 introduced by M/s ICONIT having current A/c No. 3775 with the bank and Smt.Anjula was the Proprietor of M/s A to Z Computers and current A/c no. was 4124 as per Ex. PW­14/B. He had proved the statement of Current A/c no. 4124 of M/s A to Z Computers as Ex. PW 14/C by identifying the signature of Sh.Shayam Lal Meena, the then Manager at point A as he had worked with him and seen him signing and writing in the official course of duties. Statement of Account was handed over vide seizure memo Ex. PW 14/A to CBI. He further proved the credit of pay order for an amount of Rs 5,98,898/­ on 25.01.2001 in the current account of M/s A to Z Computers as per statement of account Ex. PW 14/C. He had further proved that a pay order for an amount of Rs 11,48,000/­ Ex. PW 7/76 drawn on Syndicate Bank GTB Nagar Branch was partially purchased for sum of Rs 6,00,000 and after deduction of bank charges an amount of Rs. 5,48,898 was credited in the account. The balance amount of Rs.5,48,000/­ was credited to the account on 29.01.2001. He had proved the purchase of Demand Draft for Rs 2,00,400/­ as per statement of A/c Ex. PW 14/C. He had also proved the handing over of original Cheque bearing No. 649054 dated 25.01.2001 issued by A to Z Computers in favour of Ajay Kumar for an amount of Rs 4 Lacs CC No. 16/2010 Page 51 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 to CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW 14/D by identifying his signature at point A. He had stated that the cheque bearing No. 649054 dated 25.01.2001 issued in favour of Ajay Kumar for a sum of Rs 4 Lacs by M/s A to Z Computers as Ex. PW 14/E by recognizing the stamp of Bank at point X­1 and payment thereof was made to Ajay Kumar.

42. PW 15 Virender Dhawan had stated about his posting as Senior Branch Manager at Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar Branch, Delhi and K.C.Kumara Swami was Senior Branch Manager immediately before him. Accused KC Kumara Swami (present in the court), was correctly identified by him. He had proved the functioning of Banks and receipt of circular time to time from the Head Office. He had proved seizure memo dated 4.8.2003Ex. PW 7/63, seizure memo dated 11.06.2003Ex. PW 7/74 and seizure memo dated 2.08.2003 Ex. PW 7/54 vide which documents were handed over to Inspector Satinder Singh, Investigating Officer by identifying his signatures at points A on Ex.PW 7/63, 7/74, 7/82 and Ex. PW 7/54. He had further stated about the Demand Draft No. 401325 dated 17.08.2000 for Rs.5 Lacs, Demand Draft No. 401326 dated 17.08.2000 for Rs 3 Lacs, and Demand Draft No. 401327 dated 17.08.2000 for Rs 5 lacs, issued in favour of Bharat Indhan CC No. 16/2010 Page 52 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Udyog Ltd. and aforesaid Demand Drafts proved as Ex. PW 47/A­5, Ex.PW47/A­6 and Ex.PW47/A­7. He also identified the signatures of Shri K.C. Kumara Swami at points A on each demand draft as he had seen him while signing during the course of official duties.

43. PW 16 Smt Anjula Malhotra had stated that she along with her husband was running a computer firm under the name and style A to Z Computers and she was the Proprietor of said concern. She had stated about the opening of bank account in the name of A to Z Computers in Canara Bank. She also stated that she was dealing in the sale of computer hardware and accessories and computers but their no specific clients and sale were made as per requirement of the customers. She had correctly identified the accused Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta as he had contacted her husband in the year 2000 for opening a new computer institute and for that purpose he had expressed his desire for computers and also asked the firm and her husband for doing the network cabling also. She further proved that Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta had initially asked for 20 computers but finally 12 computers 9 UPS were supplied by her firm to Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta. She proved the portion X to X1 of her statement dated 11.08.2003 u/s.161 Cr.PC as Ex. PW16/1. She CC No. 16/2010 Page 53 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 had proved the Bills of computers supplied by her firm to Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta. The Bills were handed over by her to CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW 16/2 and her signature at point A. She also proved the handing over of the document mentioned at point X­2 and X­3 vide aforesaid seizure memo Ex. PW 16/2. She had further proved the handing over of carbon copy of Bill book Ex.PW16/3 to CBI. She had further proved the carbon copy of Bill no. 1042 dated 1.12.2000 for an amount of Rs. 10,500/­, as Ex. PW 16/4 which was issued to Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta. She had also proved the handwriting and signature of her husband on the Bill Ex. PW 16/4. She further stated that aforesaid bill mentions no name of the customer/company. She had also stated that only the format of documents (D­96) is the same but the contents of the documents (D­96) are different. Ex. PW 16/5 were different from the contents of documents Ex. PW 16/4. Further proved the handwriting and signature of her husband at point X1, X­2 and X­3 on Ex. PW 16/5. She had stated that the carbon copy of the bill book with pages no.1051 to 1100 was handed over by her to CBI and proved the same vide Ex. PW 16/6. She also proved the carbon copy of Bill No. 1068 dated 14.01.2001 as Ex. PW 16/7 by identifying the handwriting and signature on CC No. 16/2010 Page 54 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 her husband thereon. She had further stated that D­113 marked as Mark A1 was not issued by her company and denied her signature at point A2 mark Q81 on mark A1. She had further proved that D­112 marked as mark A4 was not issued by her company and denied her signature on point A3 mark Q80 on mark A4. She further denied her signature on (D­100) at Q­79 at point A­5Ex. PW 7/78. She also denied stamp of A to Z Computers prop on Ex. PW 7/78. She further denied ever visited GTB Nagar, Branch New Delhi. Smt Anjula Malhotra had proved the original cheque Ex.PW 14/E dated 25.01.2001 by identifying her signature at point A. She further identified the handwriting of her husband on Ex. PW 14/E.

44. PW 17 Ajay Malhotra had identified the accused Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta who had contacted him in the year 2000 for opening a new computer institute and for that purpose he needed computers and also asked for doing the network cabling. She further proved that Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta had initially asked for 20 computers but finally 12 computers 9 UPS were supplied by their firm to Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta being the owner of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech as per Bill Ex. PW 16/7 for an amount Rs 5,46,488. He had deposed about the carbon copy of Bill no. 1042 dated 1.12.2000. He had proved the carbon CC No. 16/2010 Page 55 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 copy of Bill as Ex. PW 16/4 which was issued to Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta by identifying his handwriting and signature on the said Bill. He further proved that name of anyone was not mentioned as the name of firm of Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta was not decided till them. He had proved the proved the carbon copy of Bill No. 1068 as Ex. PW 16/7 against which computers were supplied to M/S Baba Bhaiyan Webtech by identifying his handwriting and signature thereon at point A. Mr. Ajay Malhotra had proved the banker Cheque Ex. PW 7/76 which was in the name of A to Z Computers. The bankers Cheque Ex. PW 7/76 for a sum of Rs 11,48,00/­ was credited in the account of their firm but Bill worth Rs.5,46,498/­ Ex. PW 16/7 was issued against the supply of 12 computers and 9 UPS as demanded by Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta. He had further proved that the balance amount was returned back to Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta as per his demand. He had proved the original cheque Ex PW 14/E dated 25.01.2001 in the name of Ajay Kumar for Rs 4 Lacs by identifying his signature at point A. He further identified his handwriting on Ex. PW 14/E. He further proved the demand draft of Rs 2 lacs (D­117) which was prepared in the name of Bharat Indhan Udyog Ltd. Ex. PW 17/1 as so asked for by the Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta. He also CC No. 16/2010 Page 56 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 proved the fact about the payment of Rs 6 Lacs to Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta. He had further proved his handwriting and signature at point X1, X­2 and X­3 on Ex. PW 16/5. He further proved that the words Networking Cabling at Q 101 in his handwriting but denied his handwriting on the words appeared at X­5 and X­6 on Ex. PW 16/5 stating that someone had tampered the document.

45. PW 18 Sanjay Kumar Tyagi had deposed that in the year 2001 he was working as Sub­ Registrar at Asif Ali Road Delhi and had also deposed about the procedure regarding registration of sale deeds and maintenance of various registers maintained in the office of Sub­ Registrar' being fully conversant with such procedure. He had proved the copy of sale deed of Plot No. W­91, Greater Kailash Part­II, New Delhi executed by DLF in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Shri pal Jain r/o 6 Rohtak Road New Delhi which was seized by CBI vide Seizure memo Ex. PW 18/A dated 5.02.2004 and proved his signature at point A. He had stated about the comparison with the original sale deed and copy of sale deed lying in their office. He further stated that both were different due to reason that in para no. 3 line no. 8 of sale deed submitted by the borrower in the bank Words "Raisina Cold Storage " was CC No. 16/2010 Page 57 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 mentioned whereas in the office copy of sale deed words "Raisina Cold Storage" was written. He further proved the fact that Blue ink used in the sale deed submitted by the borrower was not as per guideline as only black ink was used. He had further stated about the comparison with the original sale deed and copy of sale deed lying in their office and proved that both were different due to reason that alphabets and printing of both sale deeds were different. He further stated that stamp of Sub­ Registrar affixed on the last page was different. He also stated that on the last page stamp started from words " Presented by­ and 1:00 PM" in the office copy 197 on the last line was consisting in the stamp whereas in the sale deed submitted by the borrower words 197 were written in hands etc. He had proved the office copy of sale deed seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 18/A was genuine whereas the sale deed submitted by borrower was the fake. He further proved that Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain s/o Sh. Shri Pal Jain r/o 6 Rohtak Road New Delhi was the owner of Plot. No. W­91 Greater Kailash part­II New Delhi.

46. PW 19 Vinay Kumar Pruthi had stated that during the year 2003 he was posted as Manager at GTB Nagar Branch of Syndicate Bank Delhi and he was well conversant with the CC No. 16/2010 Page 58 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 procedure for grant for loan, advances and documentation as the said branch was looking after the work of advances. He further stated that as per the banking procedure they used to take the original bills from the dealer who had supplied the material to the borrower and sometimes they took the attested copies of the said bills but they did not take the duplicate bills. He had proved the bank Performa in respect of form No.AF­442 regarding confirmation of goods which was required to be filled by the borrower. He further proved that the supplier used to sign at the bottom of the said form. The said form confirmed that the borrower had taken the delivery and the supplier had confirmed the delivery of goods to the borrower and thereafter the bank used to obtain the attested copy of the bill. He further proved that they used to make physical inspection at the premises of the borrower and filled up form ADV­81 in cases of machinery only and obtained the signatures of the borrower on the said form. He had further proved the Form AF­442Ex. PW 7/77 where the supplier had been shown as M/S Classic Décor by identifying the signature of borrower at point A. He further stated that the form Ex. PW 7/77 was empty and only signed by borrower and supplier. He had proved the Form AF­442Ex. PW 7/78 where the supplier had been shown as M/s A to Z CC No. 16/2010 Page 59 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Computers. He also identified the signature of borrower at point A. He further stated that the form Ex.PW 7/78 was empty. He further stated that as per procedure, if the forms were not filled up they were not accepted by the Bank. He had proved the ADV­81 forms all dated 18.08.2001 proved as Ex. PW 7/79, Ex. PW 7/80 and Ex. PW 7/81 which were inspection reports of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech with regard to Generator, Furniture/fixtures and computer/Accessories respectively as purchased by the borrower.

47. PW 20 Seema Malik had stated that she was working as interior designer in the firm with the name & style of M/S Classic Décor and joined the said firm in the year 1988­89. She further stated that Mr. Manoj was the proprietor of the firm. She had proved the receipt dated 25­1­01 regarding the receipt of pay order no. 881955 for Rs 9,54,479 as Ex. PW 20/A and denied her signature at point A encircled and marked as Q83 and she further stated that somebody had forged her signature. She had stated that letter head of Ex. PW 20/A did not belong to their firm and the Monogram appended on the receipt was also different from there Monogram. She further denied receipt of any pay order no. 881955 either from the Bank or from Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta. She had denied her signature on the CC No. 16/2010 Page 60 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 blank form AF­442 Ex. PW 7/7 at point A and further proved that somebody had forged her signature. She also proved that she had been shown as proprietor whereas she was simply an employee of M/S Classic Décor. She had further denied her signature at point A on the letter Ex. PW 20/B addressed to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Web Tech regarding acknowledgment of payment of Rs. 4,10,000/­ made to their firm out of the amount of Rs. 13,64,478 and further proved that somebody had forged her signature. She further proved they had not issued any search letter regarding receipt of payment from M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech. She had identified accused Ajay Kumar Menhdiratta who was present in court who had contacted them during Nov. 2000 and Jan. 2001 for doing some interior work at his office and for supply of some items. That work was done and payment was received. She had proved her specimen signatures Ex. PW 20/C obtained by the investigating officer and that specimen of the letter head of the firm M/S Classic Décor as Ex. PW 20/D. She stated that the pay order Ex. PW 7/75 did not contain anybody's signature on its back side.

48. PW 21 Shri Jai Narain had stated that in July 2003, he was posted as LDC in the office of Sub­Registrar­I, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He had proved the execution of GPA Ex. PW 3/13, CC No. 16/2010 Page 61 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 SPA Ex. PW 3/14 and Will Ex. PW 3/15 by Ashok Kumar Jain in favour of Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta. He had further proved that the copy of GPA and SPA were pasted in book No. 4 and whereas copy of Will was pasted in Book No. 3 and all document were registered at the office of Sub­Registrar­I, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He had further proved that these documents were witnessed by Tarun Aggarwal S/o R.K. Aggarwal, 184, Wazirpur Delhi and Shri P.K. Singh Advocate. He had further proved that they used to take copy of identity proof and also to obtain the photographs for affixing upon the documents. Earlier there was no practice of affixing the photograph of testator on the Will. He had further proved that Ashok Kumar Jain had mentioned his passport no. S 396700 whereas Ajay Kumar Mehdiratta has mentioned his passport No. B­2321208.

49. PW 22 Sh.K.P Singh had stated that he had been working as Medical Director at Rock Land Hospital, New Delhi and was residing at E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi, Since Dec. 2007 but his parents were residing there since 1970­71. He had further stated about the facts that his passport No. was 396700 which he has been keping since 1995. He had further proved that the person by the name of Ashok Kumar Jain whose name appeared CC No. 16/2010 Page 62 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 on the documents GPA Ex. PW 3/13, SPA Ex. PW 3/14 and Will Ex. PW 3/15 all dated 14­9­2000, never resided on the aforesaid address, even Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta never resided on the said address. He had proved the photocopy of his passport as Ex. PW 22/A. He further stated that he had never seen accused Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta, Neeru Pulsaria and G.C. Khanna, nor he knew them.

50. PW 23 L.S. Rawat had stated that in the year 2001, he was working as LDC in the office of Sub­Registrar­I, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He had proved the execution of GPA Ex. PW 3/13, SPA Ex. PW 3/14 and Will Ex. PW 3/15 by Ashok Kumar Jain in favour of Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta. He had further proved that the copy of GPA and SPA were pasted in book No. 4 at page no. 22050 Vol­277 at page no. 67 to 68 dated 14.09.2000 and no. 22051 Vol­277 at page no. 69 dated 14.09.2000 whereas copy of Will was in pasted Book No. 3 no. 16627 Vol­103 at page no. 33 dated 14.09.2000 and all document were registered at the office of Sub­Registrar­I, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He had also proved that these documents were witnessed by Tarun Aggarwal S/o R.K. Aggarwal, 184, Wazirpur Delhi and Shri P.K. Singh Advocate. She had proved that all documents were presented before him by Ashok Kumar Jain along with both witnesses. He CC No. 16/2010 Page 63 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 further stated that the person whose photograph affixed at point A had appeared before him. He further stated that they used to obtain identity proof as shown by the executants. He had deposed further that Tarun Aggarwal had produced his Ration card as identity proof whereas Sh P.K. Singh, Advocate was known to him and the documents were registered under the signatures of Sh. Atul Kumar, the then Sub Registrar at that time.

51. (No PW24 and PW25 were examined and due to clerical mistake, the witness, examined after PW23, was given the number of PW26).

52. PW 26 Sh. Suresh Chand Jain had stated that he was working as valuer on the panel of Syndicate Bank Since 1997 and was a registered Govt. approved valuer. He had proved the valuation report dated 13.1.2001 already Ex. PW 7/65 by identifying his signature at point A thereon. He had also deposed about the receipt of letter dated 12.1.2001 from Syndicate Bank regarding valuation of property bearing No. W­91, Greater Kailash Part­II New Delhi in the name of Ashok Kumar Jain and proved the said letter as Ex. PW 26/DA. He had received Rs 2000/­ as professional charges from the Bank.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 64 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

53. PW 27 Sh. Atul Kumar had proved the execution of documents GPA ExPW 3/13 SPAEx. PW 3/14 and will Ex. PW 3/15 all dated 14.9.2000 by Ashok Kumar Jain in favour of Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta in the office of Sub­Registrar Kashmeri Gate Delhi and registration thereof.

54. PW 28 Sh. Ranjan Verma had deposed about the Account Opening Form already Ex. PW 1/1 and Specimen Signature card Ex. PW 1/2 of current account No. 2460 opened at GTB Nagar Branch of Syndicate Bank in the name of M/s Global Marketing Company by Smt Neeru Pulsaria on 26.12.1998 by identifying her signature thereon. He also stated that on his request, Sh. Kamal Vinayak of M/s Vinayak Industries, customers of the bank had introduced that account. He also identified Smt Neeru Pulsaria. She had proved the introduction of saving bank account No. 27642 opened by Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta, husband of Neeru Pulsaria. He deposed about the said account opening form already Ex. PW 7/5 by identifying his signature at point C.

55. PW 29 Ramesh Chand was working as record Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar Asaf Ali Road Delhi had deposed about the discrepancies between the office copy of sale deed Ex. PW 3/16 and copy of sale deed submitted in the bank Ex. PW CC No. 16/2010 Page 65 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 3/3. He further corroborated the version of PW­17 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi.

56. PW 30 R.K. Aggarwal was working as chief officer in the Credit Wing of Regional Office Syndicate Bank during the year 2001 had deposed that they received a loan proposal including the enclosures which was beyond the powers of Branch Manager and Chief Manager of the Branch. He further deposed that sometimes branch officials themselves processed the loan proposal after giving them remarks along with a covering letter with recommendations to regional Office. He had deposed that whenever the proposal was received by Regional Office, it was scrutinized by the Deputy Chief Officer and it would be routed through various officers through scrutinies to the sanctioning authority who may sanction the loan or reject the same. He had proved the letter dated 29.12.2000Ex. PW 7/66 which was written by the Senior Branch Manager GTB Nagar Branch in connection with clarification of Regional Office against the loan proposal of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech by saying that file was put up before him. He had deposed about the process Note alreadyEx. PW 7/59 regarding loan of Rs 33.60 Lacs to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech which was sent by the branch Manager to the Regional Office. He also proved the recommendation of CC No. 16/2010 Page 66 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 the branch manager already Ex. PW 7/60.

He had further deposed that Sh.Jaidevan, Dy Chief Official scrutinized the proposal for loan and raised certain objections and put up the said proposal before him. He further deposed that he listed the queries and sent the said letter Ex. PW 30/A to the branch for reply. He also identified his signature at point A. He had further stated that the queries were replied one by one by the branch and their recommendations Ex. PW 7/61 for sanction of Loan. He further stated that branch wrote a letter mentioning therein that they were convinced with the integrity of the borrower. He deposed that on 13.12.2000 Sh. Jaidevan again put­up his Note signed by him at point A on Ex. PW 30/B. He further deposed that he also put an endorsement about calling the balance sheet and other information mentioned at point X to X on Ex. PW 30/B by identifying his signature at point B. He had proved the unit inspection report conducted by him along with KC Kumara Swami Branch Manager on 12.12.2000. He deposed that Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta had taken them to Pitam Pura for showing the activity of the firm, which was having no relation with the borrower firm. He had proved the unit inspection report Ex. PW 30/C by identifying his CC No. 16/2010 Page 67 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 signature at point A and that of Sh. Jaideven at point B. He had further proved the sanction of loan to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech by Sh. R.D.Naidu, Regional Manager by identifying the signature of Jai Deven at point A on the Process Note and his own signature at point B and that of Sh. H.P. Shethi at point C on the Process Note (D­70). He further proved that conditions were imposed by the sanctioning authority before disbursement of loan to the party by the branch. He had deposed about the ADV­103 form alreadyEx. PW 7/77 andEx. PW 7/78 which was blank. He further deposed that it was the duty of supplier to fill up the ADV­103 form and it was for the branch manager to verify the same. He had proved the letter dated 15.1.2001Ex. PW 7/67 received by the Regional Office from the GTB Nagar Branch.

He proved the facts that M/s Global Marketing Company was of Smt Neeru Pulsaria and account was reported regular. But statement of account had shown the outstanding of Rs 19,47,845, therefore, the information reported in letter dated 15.1.2001Ex. PW 7/67 was incorrect. He further proved that branch manager who had signed the said letter was responsible for giving the wrong information.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 68 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

57. PW 31 Ajant Kumar had proved legal opinion report dated 11.5.2001 as Ex.PW 31/A in respect of Plot No. W­91 G.K. Part­II New Delhi by identifying his signature. He had proved the facts that he had offered legal opinion on the basis of documents provided to him. He deposed that he had suggested the bank for compliance of certain conditions. He also proved his second legal search report dated 4.1.2001Ex. Pw 31/B. The report was addressed to chief Manager GTB Nagar Branch.

58. PW 32 Sh. D.N Mutalik was working as Manager in Vigilance department of Syndicate Bank during the year 2002­04 at Delhi. GTB Nagar Branch was within the jurisdiction of Vigilance Office of Delhi. He had proved that he had dealt with complaint of Sh. AK Jain who had denied the mortgage of his property for a loan granted by GTB Nagar Branch. The said complaint was lodged with the Chairman and Managing Director of their Bank.

He proved the facts that the investigation of the said complaint was directed to be conducted by Delhi Unit. He had stated that after going through the documents pertaining to said two accounts, he found the mortgaged documents of said accounts to be fake. He had further stated that he contacted AK Jain who had told him that neither he had gone to GTB Nagar CC No. 16/2010 Page 69 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Branch nor stood guarantor for accused Neeru Pulsaria or AK Mehendiratta in respect of two loans. He further stated that AK Jain had told him that he never gave him property for mortgage in respect of grant of loans to accused persons. He further deposed about the difference of photograph pasted on the documents and AK Jain to whom he met.

He had identified the documents GPA Ex. PW 3/13, SPA Ex. PW 3/14 and Will Ex. PW 3/15 and proved that photographs affixed on the said documents were not of Sh. AK Jain. He had deposed that it was the duty of the bank to verify the address and identification of the mortgagor/guarantor and also to verify about the genuineness of the property to be mortgaged. He further deposed that sanctioning authority or the officer who was apprising the loan had to file a report for spot inspection of property. He had further deposed about the report of AK Jain filed with the bank. He further deposed that loan transaction were handled by KC Kumara Swami senior branch manager and E.Gopinathan Assistant Manager. He had also deposed that it was necessary to collect the past dealing of the firm who has been applying for loan. He had also deposed that bank had to collect the quotations of the supplier from the borrower in case the borrower intend to use the loan for CC No. 16/2010 Page 70 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 purchase of assets and machinery. Thereafter, suppliers loan account was essentially to be released to supplier of such assets and machineries through DDs or pay orders in the name of suppliers.

Sh. D.N Mutalik had stated that in case the borrower had directly purchased the assets machinery the proceeds of loan was to be transferred in the account of the borrower and borrower would provide the original Bill, receipt, invoices and machinery delivery letter to the bank. He further deposed that in case borrower required the original to be shown some where else, then he had to produce the photocopies along with original documents for comparison and endorsement to that effect that he had seen the original. He further deposed that branch manager had to verify, if the machinery was purchased of the loan amount and it was actually supplied to borrower.

He deposed that receipt of Rs 16,72,494Ex. PW 16/5 issued by A to Z Computers was photocopy and No endorsement was made thereon by the branch officers. He had further deposed that Ex. PW 7/77 and Ex. PW 7/78 contained only the signatures of borrower and supplier but rest of the details were not filled up. He further deposed that as per procedure blank column were required to be filled up. He had further deposed CC No. 16/2010 Page 71 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 that branch officers did not follow the bank procedure of the bank which was required to be performed in the loan transaction. He proved the fact regarding submission of enquiry report to the bank.

59. PW 33 Sh. Hira Lal had remained posted in GTB Nagar Brach of Syndicate Bank Delhi during the period 2.7.99 to 12.08.2002 in the capacity of Manager Scale­II. He had deposed about the facts that Sh. D Padmanabhan was the Chief Manager when he joined the branch and KC Kumara Swami joined there after in the year 2000. Sh E P Gopinathan was Posted as Assistant Manager and was looking after the seat of advances. He further deposed that he could identify handwriting of all the three aforesaid official as he had seen them signing and writing in the course of official duties.

He had proved the letter regarding handing over of title deeds of property dated 28.04.2000 already asEx. PW 3/A which was filled up in the handwriting of E P Gopinathan at both pages and also handwriting of E P Gopinathan on the stamp agreement already Ex. PW 3/5.

He had further deposed about the stamp receipts Ex. PW 7/71,Ex. PW 7/72 and Ex. PW 7/73 given by the borrower to the bank at the time of release of loan. He had further deposed CC No. 16/2010 Page 72 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 that vide aforesaid stamp receipts Ex. PW 7/71,Ex. PW 7/72 and Ex. PW 7/73 payment of Rs 11,48,000, Rs 2,96,800 and Rs 9,54,479/­ were released to M/S A to Z Computers, M/s Akansha enterprises and M/S Classic Décor respectively. He also deposed about the handwriting of KC Kumara Swami on the said receipts.

He had proved the handwriting of KC Kumara Swami on the hypothecation deed already Ex. PW 3/8 which was enclosed with stamp paper. He had also proved the handwriting of KC Kumara Swami on the guarantee bond Ex. PW 3/10 (D­80) running in to four papers.

He had also proved the physical inspection report on the ADV­84 form Ex. PW 7/31 in respect of physical inspection of property No. W­91 G.K. Part­II New Delhi conducted by K.C.Kumara Swami by stating that said report was filled up in the handwriting of E P Gopinathan and signed by KC Kumar Swami had also written the value and locality at point B on the said report. He had identified the signature of KC Kumara Swami on the process Note along with recommendation dated 08/23.11.2000 running into six pages at point A onEx. PW 7/60 in connection with process of term loan to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech. He had also identified the signature of KC Kumara CC No. 16/2010 Page 73 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Swami at point A on the letter dated 29.12.2000(D­73)Ex. PW 7/76 addressed to Regional Manager, Regional Office Credit Wing New Delhi in respect of credit proposal of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech.

He had correctly identified the signature at point A of K.C.Kumara Swami on letter dated 15.1.2001 already Ex. PW 7/77 (D­74). He had further identified the signatures of K.C.Kumara Swami on the pay orders at points A which are already exhibited as Ex. PW 7/75, Ex. PW 10/4 and Ex. PW 7/76 issued in favour of M/s Classic Décor, M/s Akansha Enterprises and M/s A to Z Computers. He had identified the signature of KC Kumara Swami at point A on the cheques Ex. PW 7/84 to Ex. PW 7/88. He stated about the facts that the aforesaid cheques, amount was transferred in the account of M/s M.R. Credits from the account of M/s Global Marketing Company.

He further identified the handwriting of E P Gopinathan on the letter dated 11.9.2000 already Ex. PW 7/30 by identifying the signature of KC Kumara Swami at point A there on. He had also identified the handwriting of E P Gopinathan on the process Note running into 9 pages Ex. PW 7/34 by identifying the signature of K.C.Kumara Swami at point A and CC No. 16/2010 Page 74 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 B.

60. PW 34 Vinod Kumar Chawla had stated that he was posted as Deputy Zonal Officer (legal) w.e.f 28.06.2000 to 28.04.2001 in the syndicate Bank and had deposed about the procedure regarding obtaining legal opinion on the properties by the branches and scrutiny thereof. He further deposed that Law cell of Zonal office put their remarks about the marketable value of the property as per the opinion of empaneled advocate and Zonal office used to give instruction to the branch of compliance of conditions thereof. He had proved the legal report already Ex. PW 7/28 by identifying his signature & handwriting at points B to B. He deposed after having perused the legal report EX. PW 31/A & Ex.PW 7/28 that he had suggested the branch for obtaining Tax receipt for up to date payment and branch should physically verify the property and comply with the requirements of HO Circular No. 106/99Ex. PW 7/37 which inter alia cast duty upon the Branch Manager to personally visit the property and make discreet enquiry regarding possession and ownership of the property to be mortgaged. He further proved the remarks of Chief Law Officer Sh. S.S. Gupta and his handwriting at point C to C onEx. PW 7/28.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 75 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

61. PW 35 Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta had proved the certified copy of statement of A/c No. 11489 of M/s Classic Décor already Ex. PW 12/5 by identifying his signature at point E thereon. He further proved pay order no. 018909 dated 1.2.2001 Ex.PW 12/6 for Rs 1,40,000 issued in favour of M/s Kedia Great Galeon Ltd. which was prepared by debiting the account of M/s Classic Décor. He further proved the pay order no. 018908 dated 1.2.2001 already Ex.PW 12/7 for Rs 7,10,000 issued in favour of M/s MR credits which was prepared by debiting the account of M/s Classic Décor. He further proved that Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta was the account holder of A/c No. 11489.

62. PW 36 Sh. Nirmal Singh had stated that he had been running a taxi stand in the name of Chandigarh Taxi Service since 1979 at M­ Block Market G.K. Part­I New Delhi. He identified the accused Gyan Chand Khanna who was present in the court. He further proved that Gyan Chand Khanna was known to him as he had introduced his current Account maintained in the Central Bank of India G.K. Part­I New Delhi. He further proved that photographs affixed on the SPA already Ex. PW 3/14, GPA Ex. PW 3/13 and Will Ex. PW 3/15 all dated 14.09.2000 was of Gyan Chand Khanna.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 76 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

63. PW 37 Sh. Happy Kumar Kamra had stated that he was working in M/s Global marketing Company in the year 2000 which was of Smt Neeru Pulsaria. He also identified Ajay Kumar Mehendiratta who was present in the court. He further stated that he had worked in said concern for 2 years. He deposed that on his asking from Neeru Pulsaria about Pradeep Kumar Swami, she told that Sh. Pradeep Kumar Swami having interested in furnishing that's why he use to come there. He further deposed that Pradeep Kumar Swami s/o senior Branch Manager was looking after the work and he used to the come to the office of M/s Global Marketing Company when he had some problem.

64. PW 38 Sh. R.D. Naidu had stated that he was posted as Regional Manager in the Syndicate Bank and remained there till March 2001. He had proved the process note dated 27­11­2000 as Ex.PW 38/A which was prepared at the regional office for sanction of term loan of Rs 33,60,000 to M/S Baba Bhaiyan Web Tech. The said process note was prepared by Shri Jai Devan the then Group Head. He had further proved the remarks appearing on the said process note " we may call the Branch remarks on the queries raised by Shri Jaidevan and Shri Aggarwal". He further deposed that the said process note Ex.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 77 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 PW 38/A was put up before him and he had ordered for calling the remarks of the Branch on the basis of observation made in the note. He had further proved his signatures at point A and that of Shri Jaidevan at point B and of Mr. Aggarwal at point C and that of Mr. Adiga at point D. He had deposed about the letter dated 29.11.2000 already Ex. PW 30/A which was sent by Mr. Aggarwal to the Senior Branch Manager GTB Nagar branch clarification qua the process points raised in the process Note. He further deposed about the reply letter dated 1.12.2000 already Ex. PW 7/61 sent by KC Kumara Swami Senior Branch Manger vide which he had clarified the queried raised by RO for sanction of Loan.

He had proved that on basis of reply of branchEx. PW 7/61 Sh. Jaideven and Mr. Aggarwal prepared process NoteEx. PW 30/B by identifying their signatures at points A and C on the said process Note. He further proved that matter was discussed with him and he insisted for feasibility report on the project. The site inspection report Ex. PW 30/C was submitted by Sh. Jaideven and Mr. Aggarwal. He had proved that on the basis of site inspection report, Sh. Jaideven and Mr. Aggarwal prepared process Note dated 19.1.2001Ex. PW 38/A by identifying their signatures at point A and B and the signature Sh. H.P. Sethi at CC No. 16/2010 Page 78 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 point C and that of SM Adiga at point E and his own signature at point D on the said process Note.

He had further proved the sanction of term loan of Rs 24 lacs to M/S Baba Bhaiyan webtech, in terms of conditions mentioned in the process Note and also proved the annexure enclosed with the process NoteEx. PW 38/A­1 by identifying his signature of Sh. Jaideven at point A. He had also proved the letter dated 23.1.2001Ex. PW 38/A­2 of Senior Branch Manager, GTB Nagar, Delhi vide which he had informed the Regional Office regarding fulfillment of pre­sanction terms & conditions. He further proved that on the basis of said letter a Note was put before him through Sh Jaideven, R.K. Aggarwal and HP Shetty for final approval which was given accordingly. He had deposed about the process Note Ex. PW 38/A­3 signed by him at point A and further proved the final order as Ex. PW 7/68 by identifying the signature of HP Shetty at point A. He had proved the form ADV­103 of M/s Classic Décor asEx. PW 7/77 and proved that columns of forms were blank and details of machinery was not mentioned by the dealer. He further proved ADV­103 of M/s A to Z Computers as Ex. PW 7/78 stating that columns of forms were blank and details of machinery were not mentioned by the dealer. He had further CC No. 16/2010 Page 79 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 proved the inspection conducted by the branch ADV­81 form Ex. PW 7/79 to Ex. PW 7/81. He further proved that the branch had conducted the inspection of the machinery hypothecated to the bank after 8 months which should have been conducted with in stipulated period of 15 days.

He deposed about a letter dated 29.12.2000Ex. PW 7/76 bearing the signature of KC Kumara Swami at point A regarding exceedings allowed by him in the account of M/s Global Marketing Company and M/s M.R. Credits and informed the Regional Office regarding regularization of said exceeding within stipulated time. He further deposed that the letter had confirmed about the precautions taken by the branch in respect of the mortgage. He had proved the letter dated 15.01.2001 issued under the signature KC Kumara Swami for grant of Loan Rs 33.60 lacs to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech. He further proved that in the letter Ex. PW 7/67 dated 15.1.2001 the branch had shown exceeding were regularized within stipulated period.

He had proved the statement of account Ex. PW 7/27 pertaining to the account M/S Global marketing Company for the period 4.5.1999 to 28.5.2003. He had deposed that the account was continuously overdrawn exceeding the sanctioned limits within period from 3.4.2000 to 2003. He had proved the CC No. 16/2010 Page 80 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 statement of account Ex.PW 7/7 pertaining to the account M/S M.R. Credits INC for the period 4.5.1999 to 31.8.2000. he had deposed that the account was almost overdrawn regularly. He had also proved the statements of M/s Global Marketing Company which were on the prescribed Performa AR­3014 had shown the exceeding allowed in the sanctioned limits account. He further proved that as per letters Ex. PW 7/67 and PW 7/66 the Branch had shown the regularization of the accounts of M/s Global Marketing Company and account of M/S M.R. Credits which were, in fact, never regularized in the matter of M/s Global Marketing Company. He further deposed that the Branch had wrongly reported regarding the regularisation of exceeding.

Sh. R.D. Naidu had proved the circular no. 155­2000 BC dated 16­8­2000 Ex. PW 38/A­4 and circular no. 106/99/BC/CR/37/CRPPD dated 18­6­99 Ex. PW 7/37 which were issued by the Head office Syndicate Bank in respect of fraud by deposit of fake title deeds of property and creation of mortgage in the absence of original documents of property offered by third party. He had proved the circular no. 93/97/BC/CR/35/CRPPD dated 13­5­1997 as Ex. 38/A­5 which was issued by the Head office Syndicate Bank in respect of CC No. 16/2010 Page 81 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 delegation of sanctioning powers for granting credit facilities. He further proved that as per Bank rules the Bank should obtained quotations instead of photocopy of the credit.

65. PW 39 Shri Ram Singh had proved the seizure memo dated 4­8­2005 as Ex. PW 39/A by identifying his signatures at point A, vide which he had handed over two pay orders and two Pay­in­Slips to the CBI. He had further deposed about the pay orders already Ex. PW 12/6 and Ex. PW 12/7 and pay in slips already Ex. PW 12/9 and Ex. PW 12/8. He further proved the signatures of Shri Ram Avatar Gupta at point A on the letter dated 2­8­2003 Ex. PW 39/A­1.

66. PW 40 Sh. Prabhakar Shetty was posted as Chief Manager in the Regional Office of Syndicate Bank Bhagwan Das Road New Delhi during the relevant period and he had further corroborated the version of PW 30 Sh. R.K. Aggarwal, PW­ 32 Sh. Mutalik, PW 33 Sh. Hira Lal, PW 38 Sh. R.D. Naidu and PW 43 Sh. S.M. Adiga regarding grant of credit facilities to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech and M/s Global Marketing Company. He had stated that Branch Manager had allowed the exceeding to the extent of 80% where was it was permissible only up to 10%. He had stated further that the various transaction dated 17.8.2000, 21.09.2000, 29.09.2000 and 13.10.2000. He further CC No. 16/2010 Page 82 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 proved that statement of A/cEx. PW 7/27 had shown that Credit was given for clearing debt of another account.

67. PW 41 Sh. Allen C A Pereira had stated that in the year 2004 he was posted as General Manager (personal) in the syndicate bank. He had proved the sanction order dated 16.11.2004 as Ex. PW 41/A vide which he had accorded sanction for prosecution of KC Kumara Swami the then Senior branch Manager GTB Nagar Branch Syndicate Bank Delhi after through application of his mind. He further proved that he was the competent authority for according sanction for prosecution of KC Kumara Swami.

68. PW 42 Sh.M.C.Joshi, Dy. GEQD had proved documents of this case which were submitted for scientific examination and opinion by SP, CBI, EOW­I, New Delhi vide it letters Nos 5 (E)/2003/EOW ­I, 1067, 1897 AND 3763 dated 9.2.2004, 16.3.2004 and 10.6.2004 respectively. He had proved the said three letters as Ex.PW 42/A, Ex.P 42/A­1 and Ex.PW 42/A2.

He had deposed about receiving the questioned documents from SP, CBI vide three letters bearing signatures/writings in Red marked as Q­1, Q­2 on Ex.PW 7/72, Q­3, Q­4 on Ex.PW 7/73, Q­5, Q­6 on Ex.PW 7/71, Q­7, Q­8 on Ex.PW 77, Q­9 to Q­12 on Ex.3/8, Q­1 to Q­44 on Ex.PW 3/9, CC No. 16/2010 Page 83 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Q­45 to Q­48 on Ex.PW 97/69, Q­49 to Q­53 on Ex.Pw 7/48, Q­54 on Ex.PW 7/49, Q­55 to Q­65 on Ex.PW 7/50, Q­66 to Q­69 on Ex.PW 7/52, Q­70 to Q­77 on Ex.PW 7/51, Q­78, Q­79 on Ex.PW7/78, Q­80 on Mark­A4 now Ex.PW 42/D, Q­81 on Mark A1 now Ex.PW 42/E, Q­82 on Ex.PW 7/46, Q­83 on Ex.PW 20/A, Q­84 on PW 20/B, Q­85 to Q­90 on Ex.PW 3/13, Q­91 to Q­93 on Ex.PW 3/1, Q­94 to A­97 on Ex.PW 3/15, Q­98 to Q 101 on Ex.PW 16/5, Q­102, Q­103 on Ex.PW 7/31, Q­104, Q­106 on Ex.PW 7/34, Q­108 to Q110 on Ex.PW 3/11, Q­111 to Q­116 on Ex.PW 4/1, Q­117,Q­118 on Ex.PW 7/47, Q­119 to Q­123 on Ex.PW 3/5, Q­124 to Q­126 on Ex.PW 3/6, Q­127, A­128 on Ex.PW 3/8, Q­129 on Ex.PW 7/36, Q­130 on Ex.W 7/35, Q­131 to Q­133 on Ex.PW 3/7, Q­134 to Q­139 on Ex.PW 3/2, Q­140 to Q­143 on Ex.PW 3/10, Q­144 to Q­145, Q­146 on Ex.PW 3/12, Q­147 on Ex.PW 7/70, Q­148 on Ex.PW 14/G, Q­149, Q­150 on Ex.PW 7/8, Q­151 to Q­153 on Ex.PW 7/32, Q­154 on x.PW 14/G, Q­155 to Q­188, Q­P1 to Q­p5, Q­S1 to Q­ S7 on sale deed on Ex.PW 3/3, Q­190 on Ex.PW 3/13, Q­191, Q­192 on Ex.P/W 3/14, Q­193, Q­194 on Ex.PW 3/15, Q­195 to Q­204 on Ex.PW 7/84 to Ex.PW 7/88, Q­205 on Ex.PW 12/9, Q­206 on Ex.PW 12/8, Q­207 on Ex.PW 12/3, Q­208 to 210 on Ex.PW 12/4, Q­211 on Ex.PW 16/5. He had received the CC No. 16/2010 Page 84 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 standard writing and signatures of relevant persons, which were supplied to him for scientific examination in comparison of aforesaid questioned and proved the said details enclosing signatures in Blue marked S­1 to S­15 (D­122) purported to be of one Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta collectively proved as Ex.PW 32/F in Blue enclosed signatures marked S­28 to S­37 (D­123) purported to be of one Tarun Aggarwal collectively proved as Ex.PW 42/G, Blue enclosed signatures marked S­43, S­92, S­93 (D­125) purported to be of one Ms.Seema Malik collectively proved as Ex.PW 20/C, Blue enclosed writing and signatures marked S­136 to S­150 (D­124) purported to be of one Ajay Malhotra collectively proved as Ex.PW 42/H, Blue enclosed writings and signatures marked S­69 to S­89 (D­126) purported to be of one K.C.Kumaswami collectively proved as Ex.PW 42/J, Blue enclosed writings S­102 to S­135 (D­127) purported to be of one G.C.Khanna collectively proved as Ex.PW 42/K, Blue enclosed writings/signatures marked A­1 to A­32 A­81/1, A­51 to A­52, A­P1 to A­P3 on the Sale deed Ex.PW 3/16 and further proved that all the questioned and standard documents were stamped with the seal of GEQD laboratory at point­A concerning case number and item wise markings.

He had further proved his opinion No. CX 51/2000, dated CC No. 16/2010 Page 85 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 22.3.004 Ex.PW 42/2 and supplementary No. CX 51/2004 dated 27.7.2004 Ex.PW 42/M respectively by identifying his signature at point A and that of Sh.I.K.Arora at points B on each page thereof, who had also examined the documents and arrived at the same conclusion as was of him. He further proved the detailed reasons as Ex. PW 42/N and Ex.PW 42/O by identifying his signature at points A on each page thereof. He has sent the documents alongwith opinions and reasons back after examination to SP, CBI/EOW­I vide forwarding letter dated 29.3.2004 (D­116), letter dated 30.7.004 (D­132) and proved the signature of I.K.Arora, Dy. GEQD on Ex.PW 42/P and Ex.PW 42/Q.

69. PW 43 Sh.S.M.Adiga, who was working as Asstt. General Manager in the Regional Office of Syndicate Bank during the relevant period had proved the version of PW 30 Sh.Hira Lal, PW 38 Sh.R.D.Naidu and PW 40 Sh.Prabhakar Shetty regarding grant of credit facilities to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech and M/s Global Marketing Company and also proved the irregularities committed by K.C.Kumarswami, the then Sr. Branch Manager and he has also proved the letter dated 25.1.2001 issued under the signatures of K.C.Kumarswami Ex.PW 43/1 by identifying his signature at point A. CC No. 16/2010 Page 86 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

70. PW 44 Sh.Amar Kishore Pankaj, who was posted as Officer in the Corporation Bank at Dharmtolla Branch had deposed about the Current A/C No. 2469 opened by M/s Bharat Indhan Udyog Ltd on 29.12.1994. He had proved the Account Opening Form alongwith annexure as Ex.PW 44/2, Specimen Signature Card Ex.PW 44/3 and statement of account for the period 1.8.2000 to 31.1.2001 Ex.PW 44/4 duly certified under the signature of Sh.Y.Laxminarayan, by identifying his signatures. He had further stated that opening balance on 12.8.2000 was Rs.5,029.61/­ and closing balance on 24.8.2000 after credit of instruments was Rs.14,60,029.61/­. He further proved seizure Memo dated 7.5.2004 as Ex.PW 44/1.

71. PW 45 Sh.Jaleesh Dinakaran, who was working as Law Officer in Canara Bank at Nehru Palace, New Delhi was instructed by their staff Section on 19.7.003 to go to CBI office at Khan Market, New Delhi and he went there with Sh.Ravi Kumar, the then Officer, Canara Bank and met Inspector Satinder Kumar. He deposed about the obtaining of specimen signature/handwritings in his presence S­69 to S­89 collectively and proved the same as Ex.PW 42/J by identifying his signatures at point A on each sheet thereof.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 87 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

72. PW 46 Sh.Ravi Kumar, Officer Canara Bankdeposed about the obtaining of Specimen signature/handwritings of K.C.Kumarswami in his presence on 19.7.2003 by Inspector Satinder Kumar S­69 to S­89 and proved the same collectively already Ex.PW 42/J by identifying his signature at point B on each sheet thereof.

73. PW 47 Inspector Satinder Singh had deposed that he was entrusted with the investigation of this case in the month of June 2003 while he was posted in EOW­I as Inspector. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had recorded statements of witnesses, collected documents, obtained specimen signatures of the accused persons and also obtained Expert opinion on the questioned documents and after completion of investigation including obtaining sanction for prosecution dated 16.11.2004 Ex.PW 41/A against K.C.Kumarswami from the competent authority. He had proved the seizure Memo dated 5.3.2004 Ex.PW 7/23 by identifying the signature of Inspector B.S.Bist at point B on the said Seizure vide which he had seized the documents. He had also proved the seizure Memo dated 2.8.2003 already Ex.PW 7/54, Seizure Memo dated 29.8.2003 Ex.PW 47/A by identifying his signature at point B and point A on the abovesaid Seizure Memos vide CC No. 16/2010 Page 88 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 which he had seized the documents.

He had proved the seizure Memo dated 4.8.2003 already Ex.PW 7/63, Seizure Memo dated 1.6.2003 already Ex.PW 7/74 by identifying his signature at points B on the abovesaid Seizure Memos vide which he had seized the documents from Sh.Virender Dhawan by identifying his signatures at points A. He had also proved the letter dated 4.8.2003 as Ex.PW 47/A­1, which was received from the Sr. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Mall Road, GTB Nagar, New Delhi. He had further proved the seizure Memo dated 25.7.2003 already Ex.PW 12/2 by identifying his signature thereon at points B vide which he had seized the documents from Sh.Kailash Chander, Officer, Bank of India, New Friends Colony, New Delhi by identifying his signatures at points A. He had proved the seizure Memo dated 4.8.2003 Ex.PW 39/A by identifying his signature at points B on the abovesaid Seizure Memo vide which he had seized the documents from Sh.Ram Singh, Sr. Clerk, Bank of India, New Friends Colony, New Delhi by identifying his signatures at points A. He had also proved the seizure Memo dated 30.7.2003 Ex.PW 14/D by identifying his signature at points B on the abovesaid Seizure Memo vide which he had seized the documents from Sh.Naresh Kumar, Clerk, CC No. 16/2010 Page 89 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Canara Bank, East Patel Nagar Branch, New Delhi by identifying his signatures at points A. He had proved another seizure Memo dated 5.2.2004 Ex.PW 18/A by identifying his signature at points B on the abovesaid Seizure Memo vide which he had seized the documents from Sh.Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sub­ Registrar­III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and identified his signatures also at points A. He had proved the seizure Memo dated 15.7.2003 Ex.PW 7/82 by identifying his signature at points B on the abovesaid Seizure Memos vide which he had seized the documents from Sh.Virender Dhawan by identifying his signatures at points A. He had proved an envelope Ex.PW 47/A­2 which was handed over by Sh.Varinder Dhawan to him during the course of investigation. He had proved the letter dated 31.3.2004 Ex.PW 47/A­3 which was received from AGM, Canara Bank. He deposed about a DD bearing NO.577627 dated 25.1.2001 Ex.PW 17/6 which was received vide letter Ex.PW 7/A­3. The said letter was addressed to SP Alok Mittal, EOW­I, which was then endorsed to him. He had identified signature of Ah.Alok Mittal, SP at point A, seal of Branch at point B. Inspector Satinder Singh had proved the receipt of letter dated 24.3.2004 Ex.PW 47/A 4 from Chief Manager, Syndicate CC No. 16/2010 Page 90 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Bank, Central Accounts Office 6/NS Road Kolkatta, vide which DDs bearing Nos. 401325, 201326 Q 401327 all dated 17.8.2000 for Rs. 5 Lacs, 3 Lacs and 5 Lacs respectively issued in favour of Bharat Indhan Udyog ltd. and proved as Ex.PW 47/A­5, Ex.PW 47/A6 and Ex.PW 47/A­6. He had also identified the signature of SP Alok Mittal at point A, seal impression of Branch at point B. He also identified the signature of K.C.Kumarswami at points on Demand Drafts.

He had deposed about the specimen signature/handwritings S 1 to S­15 of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta taken by Inspector B.S.Bisht and proved the same as Ex.PW 42/F by identifying the signature at points A on each page thereof as he had worked with him and seen him signing and writing. He had further deposed about the specimen signature/handwriting S­28 to S­37 of Tarun Kumar Aggarwal taken by Inspector B.S.Bisht and proved the same as Ex.PW 42/G by identifying his signature at points A on each page thereof as he had worked with him and seen him signing and writing. He had also deposed about the specimen signature/handwriting S­136 to S­150 of Ajay Kumar Malhotra which were obtained by him and proved the same as Ex.PW 42/H bearing his signature at points A on each page thereof. He CC No. 16/2010 Page 91 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 had also identified the signature of independent witness Sh.C.L.Yadav in whose presence he had taken the specimen signature/handwriting of Ajay Kumar Malhotra.

He had deposed about the specimen signature/handwriting S­43, S­90 to S­93 of Ajay Kumar Malhotra which were obtained by him and proved the same as Ex.PW 20/C by identifying his signature at points A on each page thereof. He had also identified the signature of independent witness Sh.C.L.Yadav in whose presence he had taken the specimen signature/handwriting of Ajay Kumar Malhotra. He had further deposed about the specimen signature/handwritings S­69 to S­89 of K.C.Kumarswami which were obtained by him and proved the same as Ex. PW 42/J by identifying his signatures at points C on each page thereof. He had further deposed that the said specimen/writings were taken in the presence of independent witnesses Sh.Jalesh Dinakaran and Sh.M.Ravi Kumar, both officers of Canara Bank by identifying their signatures at points A and B. He had also deposed about the specimen signature/handwritings S­102 to S­135 of accused G.C.Khanna which were obtained by him and proved the same as Ex.PW 42/K by identifying his signature at point B on each page thereof. He had further deposed that the CC No. 16/2010 Page 92 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 specimen signature/handwritings, were taken in the presence of independent witnesses Sh.M.K.Aich, Manager, Central Bank of India, Khan Market, New Delhi and Sh.S.L.Yadav by identifying their signature at points C (S­102 to S­111) (S­112 to S­135). He had deposed about the Seizure Memo dated 7.5.2004 already Ex.PW 44/1 vide which Inspector Sanjay Sen, CBI, EOW Kolkatta had seized the documents mentioned therein.

He had stated that he had sent the documents to Govt. Examiner of questioned documents to Chandigarh through SO Sh.Alok Mittal, CBI, EOW­1, NEW DELHI vide letter dated 9.2.2004, 16.3.2004 and 10.6.2004 proved as Ex.PW 42/A, Ex.PW 42/A­1 and Ex.PW 42A/­2 respectively during the course of investigation also identified the signature of SP Alok Mittal at points A on the said letters as he had worked with him and seen him signing and writing. He had further stated about the annexures ­1, 2, 3 and 4 enclosed with the letter dated 9.2.2004 already Ex.PW 42/A and the said annexures A­1 to A­4 running into 8 Pages by identifying his signatures at points A which are collectively marked as Ex.PW 47/A­8. He had deposed the annexures ­1, 2, 3 and 4 enclosed with the letter dated 10.6.2004 already Ex.PW 42/A­2 and the said annexures A­1 to A­4 running into 5 Pages by identifying his signatures at points CC No. 16/2010 Page 93 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 A which are collectively marked as Ex.PW 47/A­10. He had further deposed about the annexures ­1 and 2 and 4 enclosed with the letter dated 16.3.2004 Ex.PW 42/A­1 and the said annexures A­1 and A­2 running into 2 Pages by identifying his signatures at points A have been collectively Ex.PW 47/A­9. He had deposed about the receipt of opinion/report which was received vide letter dated 30.7.2004 proved already Ex.PW 42/Q. He had proved the FIR of case NO. RC 5(E)/ 2003/ EOW­1/DLI dated 19.5.2003 running into 9 pages which was registered under the signatures of Sh.Alok Mittal, the then SP, EOW­1. He had further proved the FIR as Ex.PW 47/A­11 and identified the signatures of Sh.Alok Mittal at points A on each page thereof as he had worked with him and seen him writing and signing. He had proved the seizure Memo dated 30.7.2003 Ex.PW 10/1 by identifying his signature at points B on the abovesaid Seizure Memo, vide which he had seized the documents from Sh.Satvinder Pal Singh, Clerk, Syndicate Bank.

He had further proved the seizure Memo dated 11.8.2003 Ex.PW 16/2 by identifying his signature at points C on the abovesaid Seizure Memo vide which he had seized the documents from Smt.Anjula Malhotra, Proprietor of M/s A to Z CC No. 16/2010 Page 94 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 computers. He had proved the seizure Memo dated 14.7.2003 Ex.PW 47/A­12 by identifying his signature at points A on the abovesaid Seizure Memo vide which he had seized the documents from Sh.D.N.Mutalik, Manager, Syndicate Bank by identifying his signatures at point B. He also proved that he had seized AR 3014 i.e. Statements of Exceedings allowed in the sanctioned limit by the GTB, Nagar Branch, Syndicate Bank for the period from January 2000 to November 2000. He had further proved that during the course of investigation, accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and Tarun Kumar Aggarwal were arrested by Inspector B.S.Bist on 22.5.2003 and 21.5.2003 whereas accused K.C.Kumarswami was arrested by him on 16.7.2003 and accused Gyan Chand Khanna was arrested by him on 10.2.2004. He further deposed that he had correctly recorded the statements of PW 16 Smt. Anjula Malhotra, PW 29 Sh. Ramesh Chand and PW 36 Sh.Happy Kamara.

74. PW 48 Chhabi Lal Yadav had deposed that during the year 2003­04, he was working in the Govt. Canteen situated at 9th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. He further deposed that specimen signature/handwritings of Tarun Kumar Aggarwal S­28 to S­37 were taken in his presence on 23.5.2003 by identifying his signatures at points B on each sheet CC No. 16/2010 Page 95 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 thereof which are collectively already Ex.PW 42/G. He had stated that during the year 2003­04, he was working in the Govt. Canteen situated at 9th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. He further stated that specimen signature/handwritings of Ajay Kumar Malhotra on S­136 to S­150 were obtained in his presence on 22.4.2004 which are collectively proved by identifying his signatures at points B on each sheet thereof. He had further stated that during the year 2003­04, he was working in the Govt. Canteen situated at 9th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. He further deposed that the specimen signature/handwritings of Seema Malik on S­43, S­90 to S­93 were obtained in his presence by identifying her signatures at points B on each sheet thereof which are collectively already Ex.PW 20/C. He had deposed that the specimen signature/handwritings of accused G.C.Khanna on S­112 to S­135 were obtained in his presence collectively proved as Ex.PW 42/K of accused G.C.Khanna by identifying his signatures at points C on each sheet thereof which are collectively already Ex.PW 42/K.

75. PW 49 Sh. Manoj Kanti Aich, who was working as Manager, Central Bank of India, Khan Market Branch, New Delhi has deposed that specimen signature/handwritings of CC No. 16/2010 Page 96 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 accused G.C.Khanna on S­102 to S­135 were taken in his presence by identifying his signatures on the specimen signatures/handwritings on S­102­S­111 at points C on each sheet thereof which are collectively already Ex.PW 42/K. He has further stated that statement showing exceeding in sanction limit for the period from January,2000 to 30.11.2000 (D­25) was signed by the officer of the Bank and it was put up before the Manager for signing the same and same was signed by K.C.Kumarswamy from the period 30.4.2000 to 30.11.2000, who put his signatures at points X on Ex.PX ­1.

76. Statements under Section 313 CrPC of all the accused persons were recorded. Accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) examined himself as DW1 and testified that he did not know that the sale deed presented by G. C. Khanna was a forged documents. He also testified that he never knew that G. C. Khanna impersonated as A. K. Jain. He also testified that he was faithfully doing his business and maintaining stocks as per the agreement with the Syndicate Bank but due to various reasons the business failed and he was not able to pay the bank in time. Accused K. C. Kumaraswamy examined DW2 Sh. G. D. Chakrovorty, who testified that as per the clayton's rules, the rule for appropriating the money towards the debt is that in case CC No. 16/2010 Page 97 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 there are more than one debt, the amount to be appropriated will be as per the instructions of the debtors. In absence of such instructions, the creditors can appropriate the amount towards any debt. In absence of any instructions, the rule is that first in first out the amount deposited will liquidated the first debt from the first loan. He also testified that there are instances when exceedings are outstanding beyond the stipulated period. In such case bank takes a lenient view with an advice to exercise control. Remaining accused persons did not lead any evidence in defence.

Evidence against accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) and his submissions.

77. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta Prop. and authorized signatory of M/s Baba Bhawan Webtech maintained a current account at GTB Nagar Branch of Syndicate Bank. He applied for the term loan of Rs. 24 lacs on 21.1.2000 for Computer Institute. He, against the said term loan, offered the equitable mortgage of Plot No. W­91, Grater Kailash, Part­II, New Delhi in the name of Ashok Kumar Jain. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta obtained the term loan of Rs.24 lacs by mortgaging the forged/bogus paper of plot no. W­91, Greater Kailash, Part­II, New Delhi. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta CC No. 16/2010 Page 98 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 not only pledged the forged/bogus sale deed of the said plot but also presented G. C. Khanna, who impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar Jain and signed the loan documents in the bank. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta also submitted the bogus/forged Special Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney and Will all dated 14.9.2000 purportedly executed by Ashok Kumar Jain in his favour in respect of Plot No. 91, Grater Kailash­II, New Delhi. In all the bank's documents and GPA, SPA & Will, G. C. Khanna impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar Jain mentioned his address as E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, after sanction of the loan, obtained the pay order issued in the favour of M/s Classic Decor and M/s A to Z Computers from the bank and submitted the forged receipt acknowledging the payment purportedly issued by the Prop. Of M/s Classic Decor and M/s A to Z Computers in the bank. Ld. P.P. submits that Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, after obtaining the said pay order, opened a current account at Bank of India, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi in the name of M/s Classic Decor and siphoned off the loan amount. It is further submitted that Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, after obtaining the pay order amounting to Rs.11,48,000/­ for M/s A to Z Computers, contacted its owner Smt. Anjula and her husband Ajay Malhotra CC No. 16/2010 Page 99 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 and requested them to supply the computer for Rs.5,48,000/­ and repay the rest amount to him. They supplied the computer for Rs.5,48,000/­ vide bill no. 1068 dated 14.2.2001 and repaid the amount of Rs.6 lacs to Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta. M/s A to Z Computers supplied the material of Rs.10500/­ to A.K. Mehandiratta vide bill no. 1042 but A. K. Mehandiratta manipulated the bill and made it worth Rs.16.72 lacs. Thus Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta Prop. M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech siphoned off the loan amount of Rs.15,54,479/­ out of total loan of Rs.24 lacs. Besides, Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta also stood as guarantor in the loan availed by his wife Neeru Pulassria from GTB Nagar Branch, New Delhi against the bogus/forged paper of said landed property. Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta in conspiracy with his wife also transferred the amount of Rs. 7,55,000/­ from the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. to his current account maintained in the name of M/s M. R. Credit Inc. It is further submitted that Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta and his wife Smt. Neeru Pulassaria submitted the bogus tax paid receipt of plot no. W­91, Greater Kailash, Part­II, New Delhi to the Syndicate Bank.

78. Ld. P. P. has drawn my attention to the evidence of Ashok Kumar Jain (PW3) real owner of the plot no. W­91, Greater CC No. 16/2010 Page 100 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Kailash­II, New Delhi, who resides at 6, Rohtak Road, New Delhi, was examined and he stated that he never mortgaged his property against the loan granted to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech. He proves that he never executed any SPA, GPA and Will in favour of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta. E. P. Gopinathan (PW7) proves that Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta has submitted bogus receipts, GPA, SPA and will. Smt. Anjula Malhotra, Prop. M/s A to Z Computers (PW16) and Smt. Seema Malik (PW20) employee of M/s Classic Decor proves that they did not issue any receipt regarding acknowledging the payment made to them by M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi (PW18) proves that the sale deed of property bearing no. W­91, GK­II submitted by bank is bogus and fake. Ram Avtar Gupta (PW34) and Kailash Chandra (PW12) prove that Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta opened the account in the name of Classic Decor and deposited pay order and withdrew the amount. Ajay Malhotra (PW17) of A to Z Computers proves that they had supplied the material worth Rs.10,500/­ to A.K. Mehandiratta vide bill no. 1042. He proves that they had supplied the material worth Rs.5.48 lacs vide bill no. 1068. He also proves that he repaid the amount worth Rs.6 lacs to A.K. Mehandiratta. Charan Singh (PW4) and Sanjay Chouhan (PW11) prove that CC No. 16/2010 Page 101 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 the MCD property submitted by Neeru Pulassria and A.K. Mehandiratta is bogus and fake.

79. It is argued by Sh. S. P. Ahluwalia, adv. for accused A1 that there is no evidence on record to show that the K. C. Kumaraswamy, Branch Manager, GTB Nagar Brnach, Syndicate Bank, New Delhi was in any manner in conspiracy with Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) and Neeru Pulassria (A2). It is further argued that all the documents i.e. GPA, SPA and Will relied upon by the prosecution had been presented to the bank in enhancing the OD limit before accused K. C. Kumaraswamy (A4) joined GTB Nagar Brnach of Syndicate Bank.

80. It is argued that there is no evidence to prove that accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) had given any monitory benefit to Sh. K. C. Kumaraswamy (A4). Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW32 D. N. Mutalik, who has stated in cross examination dated 8.12.2009 that he did not find any conspiracy between the bank official and accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) in his investigation, which was conducted by him for the purpose of departmental inquiry. It is further argued that there is no evidence to prove that accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) had forged the sale deed or had forged the GPA, SPA and Will. It is argued that CC No. 16/2010 Page 102 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) genuinely believed Gian Chand Khanna to be A. K. Jain. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of this accused, who appeared in witness box as DW1, wherein he had testified that Mr. D. Padmanabhan i.e. the Chief Manager of the Bank had told him that a loan cannot be given unless and until the adequate security is furnished. A1 (DW1) has further testified that he had no arrangement for the collateral security immediately. One day he was reading the Hindustan Times. He learnt that there was some person offering third party collateral security. Then he contacted Mr. A. K. Jain, whose number was mentioned in the said advertisement. It is stated that the said A. K. Jain, G. C. Khanna imperonated as A. K. Jain came to his office and showed him the original title deed of property no. W­91, G. K. Part­II, New Delhi. Since there was no photographs of title deed to furnish his identity, accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) asked for his identity and G. C. Khanna showed him a photo copy of passport. Accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (DW1) further testified that still he remained unsatisfied and asked for the original passport but G. C. Khanna replied that the same had been deposited with the authority for obtaining visa for USA. Accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (DW1) testified that G. C. CC No. 16/2010 Page 103 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Khanna, who was impersonating as A. K. Jain, was ready to stand as surety against surety amount of Rs.5 lacs which he needed for the study of his son. Since Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) did not agree to it, then G. C. Khanna offered another proposal submitting that he would execute registered SPA/GPA in respect of the property to satisfy him regarding his identification and authenticity of the document. Therefore accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) agreed to it and the SPA and GPA were registered in the office of said Registrar, Kashmere Gate and then he took the same to the bank but refused to accept the same by saying that the executent of SPA and GPA had to be brought in the bank. He further testified that when he applied for the loan, Mr. D. Padmanabhan, the then Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank assured that he would get loan sanctioned from the regional office. In the meantime K. C. Kumaraswamy joined the said branch as the senior manager. At the time of initial processing of the loan, D. Padmanabhan and accused K. C. Kumaraswamy (A4) were both working in the said branch and both of them had visited the property and they took a year to sanction the loan. It is stated that the loan was finally sanctioned in the amount of Rs.24 lacs. D. Padmanabhan had suggested that the loan amount be raised CC No. 16/2010 Page 104 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 from Rs.9 las to Rs.17 lacs and there was overdrawn in M/s Global Marketing, which was not for withdrawing the cash but only for the clearance of the cheques. There used to be stock value of Rs.28 lacs to 35 lacs available with M/s Global Marketing. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of A1 (DW1), who states that he did know that A. K. Jain was not the genuine person, otherwise he would not have taken him as a guarantor. Ld. Defence Counsel, while referring the testimony of A1 (DW1), submits that when accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) came to know about the sale deed being forged, still he continue to make payment to the bank to reduce his liability and that even now he has paid substantial amount to the bank and there is likely to be full and final settlement of the entire amount.

81. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that there is no evidence to prove that offence under Section 420 IPC was committed because while furnishing A.K. Jain as guarantor, he had no knowledge that in fact G. C. Khanna was impersonating as A. K. Jain.

82. I have considered the submissions and have perused the evidence. It is not disputed by the prosecution that there is nothing on record to show that (A1) himself had forged the sale CC No. 16/2010 Page 105 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 deed. It is also admitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that there is no evidence on record to show that accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta had bribed K. C. Kumaraswamy. However I find substance in the submissions of Ld. Public Prosecutor that there cannot be any direct evidence of conspiracy and the same has to be inferred from the acts and conducts of the accused persons. I have perused the sale deed. PW3 Ashok Kumar Jain has proved the original title deed of the said property which is Ex.PW3/4. On seeing the sale deed presented in the bank, which is Ex.PW3/3, he testified that the said sale deed does not pertain to his property. He testified that he had never executed any document in the bank. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention that even in the forged sale deed Ex.PW3/3, the address of A. K. Jain is written as 6 Rohtak Road. On the genuine sale deed Ex.PW3/16, which was taken from the office of Registrar and the copy of sale deed Ex.PW3/4 produced by the PW3 Sh. A. K. Jain, the address of A. K. Jain is clearly mentioned as 6 Rohtak Road. PW3 A. K. Jain has given his address at the time of his examination as 6 New Rohtak Road. It is not acceptable to me that a person i.e. accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1), who is negotiating with G. C. Khanna, who came with the forged sale deed, would not make an inquiry of CC No. 16/2010 Page 106 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 the identity of A. K. Jain by visiting his residential address of 6 Rohtak Road. It is pertinent to note that accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) while testifying as DW1 has himself testified that he was not satisfied with the identity of A. K. Jain. In such circumstances, no one would buy his argument that he was taken in by G. C. Khanna. Rather the circumstances clearly show that Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) might not be the creator of the sale deed but he knew that the sale deed in question i.e. Ex.PW3/3 is a forged document and with a view to get his limits enhanced, i.e. credit facility for the account of Neeru Pulassria (A2) from Rs.9 lacs to Rs.17 lacs and for getting the credit facility to the tune of Rs.24 lacs in the account of Baba Bhaiyan Webtech owned by him, he presented the same in the bank.

83. The subsequent conduct of accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) is also reflection of criminal intent. It is pertinent to note that he furnished blank forms i.e ADV­103, which are Ex.PW7/77 and Ex.PW7/78, which is for the purpose of confirmation of delivery of machinery in terms of the agreement. However no details of any machinery etc. has been given in both these forms. It is pertinent to note that these forms were furnished to show that Baba Bhaiyan Webtech had CC No. 16/2010 Page 107 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 purchased various articles and machinery from "Classic Decor and from M/s A to Z Computers".

84. On receiving the credit facility of Rs.24 lacs for the Baba Bhaiyan Webtech, he took a pay order from the bank duly signed by K. C. Kumaraswamy (A4) dated 25.1.2001 (Ex.PW7/75), accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) opened a bank account in the name of Classic Decor under his own proprietorship on 29.1.2001 in Bank of India (the account opening form Ex.PW12/3, D­90) and thereafter he deposited this pay order in his own account of Classic Decor, which is reflected from the statement of account Ex.PW12/5 (of Bank of India) (D­92). This amount is duly entered at point 'F' in this statement of account. It is pertinent to note that this account i.e. the account of "Classic Decor" was opened with the amount of Rs.5000/­ only and thereafter the first entry dated 31.1.2001 is of Rs.9.54,479/­.

85. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to Ex.PW7/73 (D85), which shows that this pay order was duly received by him from the Syndicate Bank on 25.1.2001 on the very day when the credit facility was made available him by the Syndicate Bank. The statement of account Ex.PW12/5 of the account of "Classic Decor" under the proprietorship of accused CC No. 16/2010 Page 108 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) would show that out of this amount there is debit entry of Rs.7,10,355/­ on 1.2.2001 itself vide which this money was transferred to the account of M. R. Credits of accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1). This receipt of money in the bank account of "M. R. Credits" is clearly reflected in its account maintained in Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar. The statement of account Ex.PW7/7 clearly shows this entry on 1.2.2001 itself. In this manner very cleverly the amount was taken out from the account of Baba Bhaiyan Webtech owned by accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) purported to have been shown to be paid to "Classic Decor" (which in fact was also owned by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, A1 himself) and thereafter amount of Rs. 7.08,696/­ was transferred from the "Classic Decor" to "M. R. Credits". The statement of account show show that on 29.1.2001 the credit amount of "M. R. Credits" owned by accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta was Rs.7,06,974/­. After receiving the sum of Rs.7,08,696/­ from "Classic Decor", this amount was reduced to Rs.1718/­ thereby regularizing the account of M. R. Credits. In nutshell accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) had taken the money from Syndicate Bank and by enrouting it through his own firm, namely Classic Decor, CC No. 16/2010 Page 109 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 and thereafter depositing the amount in the account of M. R. Credits, he had cheated the bank by way of showing that whatever money was drawn by him from current account of M. R. Credits owned by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) has been regularized.

86. Similarly the Syndicate Bank issued a pay order duly signed by accused K. C. Kumaraswamy (A4) dated 25.1.2001 amounting to Rs.11,48,000/­. (A1) received this pay order on 25.1.2001 itself vide a receipt Ex.PW7/71 (D86). Ld. P. P. has drawn my attention to the current account of "M/s A to Z Computers", the statement of which is Ex.PW14/C. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW14 Naresh Kumar, a clerk of Canara Bank, who has testified that Ex.PW7/76 (D87) is a pay order drawn on Syndicate Bank for a sum of Rs.11,48,000/­ dated 25.1.2001. The number of this pay order is 172 and this pay order Ex.PW7/76 was purchased by the Canara Bank, East Patel Nagar (which is the bank of M/s A to Z Computers) for a sum of Rs.6 lacs and after deducting the bank charges the said amount credited was Rs.5,98,898/­. The witness testified that after pay order was sent for clearance, the balance amount of Rs.5,48,000/­ was credited to the account on 29.1.2001. The perusal of the statement of account CC No. 16/2010 Page 110 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Ex.PW14/C of M/s A to Z Computers in Canara Bank would show that there is a clear deposit of Rs.5,98,896/­ on 25.1.2001 and Rs.4 lacs were paid to A1. In this regard PW16 Ms Anjula Malhotra, the proprietor of M/s A to Z Computers, has testified that she and her husband Ajay Malhotra were having a computer firm and that her firm had supplied 12 computers and 9 UPS to Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1). She however stated that the financial matters used to be dealt by her husband Ajay Malhotra. Ajay Malhotra (PW17) testified that as per bill Ex.PW16/7, 12 computers and 9 UPS were supplied to Baba Bhaiyan Webtech for an amount of Rs.5,46,488/­ vide bill dated 14.2.2001. He testified that pay order/bankers cheque Ex.PW7/76 (which is issued by Syndicate Bank) was in favour of his firm i.e. M/s A to Z Computers, which was for a sum of Rs.11,48,000/­. He testified that the said bankers cheque was credited to the account of their firm but since the value of 12 computers and 9 UPS supplied by M/s A. to Z Computers to accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) was Rs.5.46,498/­ vide bill no. 1068, the accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta had asked for the return of balance amount. Therefore a cheque Ex.PW14/E for a sum of Rs.4 lacs issued by his wife Ms Anjula Malhotra was issued in the name of Ajay Kumar Malhotra. He CC No. 16/2010 Page 111 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 further testified that he also issued a demand draft of Rs.2 lacs (D117) in the name of accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) but this draft was prepared in the name of Bharat Indhan Udyog Ltd.. In view of this evidence, I am convinced that the prosecution has proved that although accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) has shown to the Syndicate Bank that he had paid the bankers cheque of Rs.11,48,000/­ to M/s A to Z Computers for the purchase of computers etc. but actually he has purchased the computers etc. only to the value of Rs. 5,46,498/­ and had taken back a sum of Rs.6 lacs (Rs.4 lacs by a cheque in his own name and Rs.2 lacs through a bank draft in the name of Bharat Indhan Udyog Ltd.). In this way, he committed fraud upon the bank. In this regard, PW16 has testified that as per carbon copy of bill/credit memo no. 1042, she had charged for net working to the extent of Rs.10,500/­. However accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) in capacity of proprietor of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech had furnished a forged bill no. 1042 showing the bill of Rs.16.39,700/­. PW16 Ms Anjula Malhotra in her testimony has proved Ex.PW16/4 to be a correct bill i.e. bill no. 1042 dated 2.12.2000 issued to accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1), where as another bill no.1042 Ex.PW16/5 presented to the bank by A1, to be a forged bill.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 112 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

87. On seeing the another credit memo number 1042 furnished by accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) to the bank purported to have been issued by M/s A to Z Computers, she had testified that this bill was not issued by her, although the format of the bill is same as that of bills issued by her. On seeing both the bills it is very clear, the bill Ex.PW16/5 furnished by accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) to the Syndicate Bank is a forged bill. It is pertinent to note that on 25.1.2001, the credit limit to the extent of Rs.24 lacs was given by Syndicate Bank to Baba Bhaiyan Webtech and on this very day an amount of about Rs.21 lacs i.e. Rs.11,48,000/­ and Rs. 9,54,479/­ were issued by the bank and were taken by accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) vide receipts Ex.PW7/71 and Ex.PW7/73.

88. All this evidence clearly proves that the credit limit was sanctioned on 24.1.2001 by the regional office vide letter Ex.PW7/68 and on 25.1.2001 accused K. C. Kumaraswamy (A4) issued a letter to accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) informing him about the credit facilities to the tune of Rs.24 lacs vide his letter Ex.PW7/69. On that very day accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1), Neeru Pulassria (A2) and G. C. Khanna (A5) accepted these terms and conditions. On that very CC No. 16/2010 Page 113 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 day a letter on behalf of Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta, Ashok Kumar Jain, Tarun Kumar Aggarwal and Neeru Pulassria was issued to the manager vide letter Ex.PW3/1 on 25.1.2001 and on that very day the bankers cheque were issued to accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) amounting to approximately Rs. 21 lacs, which were quickly (mis) appropriated by accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) as discussed above. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case against accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) under Section 420 IPC for having cheated Syndicate Bank as mentioned above. He is also convicted under Section 471 IPC for using/furnishing the fake documents i.e. sale deed, GPA and SPA to procure the enhanced credit limit for M/s Global Market to the tune of Rs.17 lacs and to get credit facilities to the tune of Rs.24 lacs to Baba Bhaiyan Webtech.

89. Since there is no specific evidence that accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta (A1) had forged these documents, therefore I am not inclined to convict him under Section 467 and 468 IPC but as I have stated that he knew the sale deed to be a forged document. I hold that he was in conspiracy with G. C. Khanna while G. C. Khanna executed GPA, SPA and Will of this property in favour of A. K. Mehandiratta.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 114 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

90. From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta was a party to the criminal conspiracy to cheat the Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar as discussed above by using forged documents and by persuading K. C. Kumaraswamy in abusing his official position to give pecuniary advantage to Baba Bhaiyan Webtech and M/s Global Marketing. Thereby he also stands convicted under Section 120 IPC read with Section 420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Evidence against accused Neeru Pulsaria (A­2) and her submissions:

91. It is submitted by the Ld. Public Prosecutor that accused Neeru Pulsaria (A­2) was the proprietor and authorized signatory of M/s Global Marketing Co. maintained a current account at GTB Nagar Branch. She applied for the OD facility of Rs. 9 lacs on 01.03.2000 for working capital requirement. She, against the said facility, offered the VCC of Rs. 5 lacs and stock in trade. The said facility was sanctioned on 06.03.2000 by D.Padmanabhan, the then Chief Manager. Accused Neeru Pulsaria substituted the security and offered to mortgage Plot no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi in the name of Ashok Kumar Jain as collateral security. Accused Neeru Pulsaria and her husband CC No. 16/2010 Page 115 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta (A­1) submitted the bogus/forged paper of plot no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi. Ld. P. P. Argues that Accused Neeru Pulsaria and her husband Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta (A­1) not only mortgaged the forged/bogus sale deed of the said plot, also presented G.C. Khanna (A­5) who impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar Jain in the bank and signed the loan documents as Ashok Kumar Jain in the bank. It is argued that A­2 Neeru Pulsaria and her husband A­1 submitted the bogus tax paid receipt of plot no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi. A­2 Neeru Pulsaria applied for enhancement of OD facility from Rs. 9 lacs to Rs. 17 lacs vide application dt. 20.09.2000. Against the said enhancement, she again offered the equitable mortgage of plot no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi. The said limit was enhanced on 29.09.2000 by K.C. Kumaraswamy (A­4)on 29.09.2000. Accused Neeru Pulsaria and her husband again presented G.C. Khanna who impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar Jain and executed the loan documents. Besides this, accused Neeru Pulsaria also stood as a guarrantor in the term loan availed by her husband A­1 Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta on the basis of forged/bogus documents of plot no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi and executed the loan documents.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 116 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

92. It is argued that Ashok Kumar Jain was the real owner of the plot no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi was residing at 6, Rohtak Road, New Delhi had never mortgaged his property against the loan granted to M/s Global Trading Co. It is further argued that he never executed any SPA, GPA and Will in favour of Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta (A­1). It is also argued that PW7­E.P. Gopinathan has proved that accused Neeru Pulsaria obtained the loan on the basis of forged documents and transferred an amount of Rs. 7.55 lacs to the account of MR Credit whose proprietor was accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. It is submitted that PW4 Charan Singh & PW11 Sanjay Chauhan have proved the the MCD property tax receipt submitted by accused Neeru Pulsaria and Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta was bogus and fake. It is also submitted that PW29 Ramesh Chand and PW18 Sanjay Kumar Tyagi have proved that the sale deed of property bearing no. W­91, G.K.­II was bogus and fake. It is proved by PW6 Ambuj Kumar Jain that no person by the name of Ashok Kumar Jain was residing at E­37, Kalkaji. However, the accused persons had mentioned the address of Ashok Kumar Jain as E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

93. I have considered the submissions of prosecution as well as the defence. Although, the prosecution has duly proved the CC No. 16/2010 Page 117 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 documents which show that accused Neeru Pulsaria applied for enhancement of O.D. facility from Rs. 9 lacs to Rs. 17 lacs vide application dt. 20.09.2000 and that against such enhancement she again offered equitable mortgage of plot no. W­91, G.K.­II, New Delhi. However, it is not clear from the evidence on record that it was accused Neeru Pulsaria herself who had produced accused G.C. Khanna (A­5) who was impersonating as Ashok Kumar Jain. Even if it is presumed that she had appeared in the bank alongwith her husband accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta and accused G.C. Khanna, still there is not enough evidence on record to show that she knew that accused G.C. Khanna was an impersonator. In this regard, I would like to press that if criminal courts start convicting the persons simply on the basis of documents and thereby taking technical view without understanding the social realities at ground level, such approach may lead to miscarriage of justice. Although, the prosecution has proved relevant documents against accused Neeru Pulsaria, but, at the same time, possibility cannot be ruled out that accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta who is her husband was actually operating the entire transactions and accused Neeru Pulsaria might be placing signatures on the applications merely on his instructions in good faith without having knowledge that CC No. 16/2010 Page 118 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 the offence of forgery and cheating is being conducted by her husband. Duty of the court is to see as to whether the accused is actively and very substantially participating in a crime or not. Unless overwhelming evidence in that direction is produced, the courts should avoid convicting such persons. It is pertinent to note that in her statement under section 313 CrPC (in which she had given her defence in detail and which I am not inclined to reproduce for the sake of brevity), she has taken a specific defence that her husband was managing the whole affairs of her business and she came to know about the forgery and cheating only when CBI called her. Therefore, to my mind, it would not be safe to convict accused Neeru Pulsaria (A­2) and therefore, I give benefit to reasonable doubt to her and acquit her. Evidence against accused Tarun Agarwal (A­3) and his submissions:

94. Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that accused Tarun Agarwal (A­3) stood as a guarantor in the term loan availed by accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta from Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar Branch, Delhi on the basis of forged and bogus documents of plot no. W­91, Greater Kailash Part­II, New Delhi. It is submitted that he also executed the loan documents as guarantor against the loan availed by A­1 & A­2. It is argued CC No. 16/2010 Page 119 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 that accused Tarun Agarwal also witnessed the SPA, GPA, Will executed by accused G.C. Khanna impersonating himself as Ashok Kumar Jain in the favour of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta in respect of plot no. 91, Greater Kailash­II, New Delhi. It is submitted that the GEQD opinion dt. 29.03.2004 has proved that accused Tarun Kumar Agarwal signed the SPA, GPA and Will as witness. It is further argued that PW27 Atul, Sub Registrar has proved that SPA/GPA and Will were witnessed by accused Tarun Kumar Agarwal & Sh. P.K. Singh. It is further argued that PW3 Ashok Kumar Jain has proved that he never executed any Will/SPA/GPA in favour of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. It is also proved by PW36 Nirmal Singh that accused G.C. Khanna impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar Jain and executed Will/SPA/GPA in favour of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. It is argued that PW7 E.P. Gopinathan has proved that accused Tarun Agarwal executed the loan documents as Guarantor against the credit facility availed by accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta (A­1). It is proved by PW6 Ambuj Kumar Jain that no person by the name of Ashok Kumar Jain was residing at E­37, Kalkaji. However, the accused persons had mentioned the address of Ashok Kumar Jain as E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 120 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

95. I have considered the submissions and have also perused the documents. As per documents, accused Tarun Aggarwal stood guarantor to accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta but it cannot be said that he was aware that the documents of plot no. W­91, Greater Kailash Part­II, New Delhi were forged. Although, he has witnessed the SPA/GPA and Will executed by accused G.C. Khanna (A­5) impersonating as Ashok Kumar Jain in favour of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta, the submissions of this accused that he stood as a witness to the transaction on behalf of accused A.K. Mehndiratta is not without substance. There is no evidence on record to show that accused Tarun Agarwal had in his knowledge that accused G.C. Khanna was an impersonator or that the sale deed of the plot was a forged sale deed. Therefore, I give benefit of doubt to this accused and acquit him.

Evidence against accused K.C. Kumaraswamy (A­4) and his submissions:

96. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy (A­4) allowed the exceedings in the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. against the bank norms. It is submitted that as per the guidelines, only 10% exceedings may be allowed in the account and the same may be regularized CC No. 16/2010 Page 121 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 within 15 days and that the exceedings may be allowed only 4 to 6 times in a year and the same may be allowed for genuine business reasons. It is submitted that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy allowed the exceeding in the said account on regular basis and these were not regularized within stipulated period. The account of M/s Global Marketing Co. was overdrawn when he joined the branch. It is argued that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy continued the same and the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. was running in exceedings from 22.05.2000 to 28.09.2000. Exceedings allowed in the said account were regularized by enhancing the OD limit on 29.09.2000. Accused K.C. Kumaraswamy again started allowing exceedings in the account of M/s Global Marketing from 28.11.2000 and till his relieving from the branch on 24.05.2001. It is submitted that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy either did not report the exceedings in the account and when reported, reported wrongly. He allowed the exceedings in the said account upto Rs. 17,16,389.98 against the sanctioned limit of Rs. 9 lacs and upto Rs. 29,41,970.42 against the sanctioned limit of Rs. 17 lacs. Accused allowed the exceedings in the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. for clearing the liabilities of M/s M.R. Credit Inc. and reported the same wrongly to the CC No. 16/2010 Page 122 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Regional Office. It is submitted that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy allowed the exceedings in the said account after 25.01.2001 beyond his delegated powers. Accused K.C. Kumaraswamy while taking the property of Ashok Kumar Jain as collateral security did not ensure that Ashok Kumar Jain was duly introduced to the bank as the same was required by bank's circular no. 155/BC/2000 dated 16.08.2000. It is also argued that Ashok Kumar Jain was not having any account in the bank nor accused K.C. Kumaraswamy obtained any documentary proof from the alleged Ashok Kumar Jain about his identity. Accused K.C. Kumaraswamy did not write any letter to the third party mortgagor i.e. Ashok Kumar Jain at E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi or 6, Rohtak Road, New Delhi for obtaining the willingness of Ashok Kumar Jain for mortgaging his property. Furthermore, accused K.C. Kumaraswamy did not make a secret inquiry in respect of possession of the said plot as directed by Zonal Office, Law Cell and bank's circular no. 106/99/BC dated 18.06.1999. It is argued that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy did not ensure end use of term loan amount sanctioned to accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. He directly handed over the pay order to accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta against the bank's norms and the loan amount sanctioned to M/s Baba Bhaiyan CC No. 16/2010 Page 123 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Webtech was siphoned off by accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. Accused K.C. Kumaraswamy neither obtained ADV­81 nor ensured obtention of ADV­81 after release of the loan amount on 25.01.2001. It is submitted that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy accepted blank AF­442 (this document establishes the identity of machinery supplied by the supplier to the borrower) against the bank norms. Accused K.C. Kumaraswamy had deliberately informed the Regional Office wrongly that the exceedings allowed in the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. were regularized within stipulated period, however, exceedings allowed in the said account were not regularized. It is also submitted that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy also informed the Regional Office that he has taken all the precaution in mortgaging the property i.e. Plot No. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi however he did not comply the circular no. 155/BC/2000 dated 16.08.2000. He relied on the legal report and valuation reports which were submitted before posting and he did not obtain the fresh valuation report and legal report. He further accepted duplicate MCD bill which was tampered by accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta as tax paid receipt. Ld. P. P. submits that from the cursory look of this bill, it is established that this bill is tampered but accused K.C. Kumaraswamy failed to detect the CC No. 16/2010 Page 124 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 same. Investigation further revealed that Pradeep Kumaraswamy, who is son of K.C. Kumaraswamy, was working in M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech when the initial work for establishing the Computer Institute was going on.

97. It is submitted that PW3 Ashok Kumar Jain was the real owner of the plot no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi who also resided at 6, Rohtak Road, New Delhi. He stated that he never mortgaged his property against the loan granted to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech. He further proved that he never executed any SPA, GPA and Will in favour of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. It is proved by PW5 Anil Kumar Gupta that he had introduced the account of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech on the request of accused K.C. Kumaraswamy, the then Sr. Branch Manager. It is argued that PW2 Jung Bahadur Pundit has proved that the owner of plot no. W­91, Greater Kailash­II, New Delhi was Ashok Kumar Jain who was residing at 6,Rohtak Road, New Delhi. He also proved that no bank official has made any inquiry from him regarding the ownership of the said plot. It is proved by PW5 Ambuj Kumar Jain that no person by the name of Ashok Kumar Jain was residing at E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi since 1998 and that no bank official has made any inquiry from him in person or through registered letter in CC No. 16/2010 Page 125 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 respect of any loan. It is argued that PW38 R.D. Naidu proved that term loan of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech was sanctioned by him and he also proved the correspondence which took place between RO & Branch. He also proved that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy has wrongly reported them that exceeding allowed in the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. were regularized within stipulated period. He also proved that the exceeding allowed in the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. were wrongly reported in prescribed proforma AF­3014 to Regional Officer. It is further submitted that PW37 Happy Kamara has proved that Pradeep Kumaraswamy S/o K.C. Kumaraswamy was working in M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech when the entire work for starting the Computer Centre was going on.

98. I have considered the submissions of the parties. It is not in dispute that the decision to advance against the mortgage of property no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi had already been taken before the joining of accused K.C. Kumaraswamy. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy did not know that the sale deed in question was forged documents. It is also possible that the fact of accused G.C. Khanna having impersonated as Ashok Kumar Jain might CC No. 16/2010 Page 126 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 not be in the knowledge of accused K.C. Kumaraswamy. It is pertinent to note that PW­7 has clearly stated that he alongwith accused K.C. Kumaraswamy had visited the property in question. It is argued by Ld. PP that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy should have visited the address given in the sale deed of A.K. Jain and he should have written a letter at this address as per rules. It is further submitted by Ld. PP that accused did not follow this procedure which indicates that he was a party to receiving the forged documents in respect of this property. I am of the opinion that here on this point, possibility of accused K.C. Kumaraswamy having acted in dishonest haste cannot be ruled out. But such dishonest haste however would not lead the court to presume that he knew that the documents were forged and that accused G.C. Khanna was impersonating as A.K. Jain. Similarly, I am of the opinion that circumstances are not enough to reach to a conclusion that accused K.C. Kumaraswamy was party to the conspiracy hatched by accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta (A­1) and accused G.C. Khanna (A­5) to cheat the bank. Therefore, I give benefit of doubt to accused K.C. Kumaraswamy on this point and acquit him under the substantial charge of 420 IPC and Under Section 120­B IPC read with Section 420,419,467,468 ,471 IPC.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 127 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

99. However, I find substance in the submissions of Ld. Public Prosecutor that accused abused his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage to M/s Global Marketing Co. as well to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech.

100. Ld. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW­7 (dt. 23.07.2007) wherein it is stated that the exceedings in sanction limit and debit balances are allowed to branches to their customers to meet their need and also to retain the customers in view of the stiff competition and that many times these exceeding debit balances are not regularized within the stipulated time and that it is not viewed seriously when recommended by the branches to the controlling offices. It is argued that as per the testimony of PW­7, the exceedings were being allowed in the account of M/s Global Marketing Co. prior to the joining of accused K.C. Kumaraswamy in the branch against the sanctioned limit of Rs. 9 lacs and the party was allowed to draw to the extent of Rs.14,93,000/­. It is argued that if accused K.C. Kumaraswamy allowed the exceedings upto Rs. 17 lacs, there is nothing wrong in it. I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. This aspect should be seen in view of the overall conduct of this accused. He also provided credit facility upto Rs. 24 lacs to M/s CC No. 16/2010 Page 128 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Baba Bhaiyan Webtech of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta and the day it was allowed by the Regional Office, the very next day around Rs. 21 lacs by way of 2 pay orders were issued, as discussed by me in detail while dealing with the evidence against accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. It is pertinent to note that it was his duty to see the end­use, as per sanction letter Ext.PW7/68. As per the condition no. 1 of Ex.PW7/68, it was enjoined upon the branch to confirm end­use of the loan amount by obtaining proper quotations, margin, specific releases, obtention of bills and receipts etc. A perusal of Ext.PW7/77 and Ext.PW7/78 in form AF442/ADV­103, no such details of articles is written. Ext.PW7/77 is a from in respect of the confirmation of delivery of machinery by "Classic Decor" and Ext.PW7/78 is the same form on behalf of 'A to Z Computers' but both the forms are absolutely blank except that at one place they bear the signatures of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta and at another point the same bears the signatures of the proprietors of such firms. It is pertinent to note that both these forms are totally blank and it is clear that no end­use has not been verified by accused K.C. Kumaraswamy. I have already mentioned while discussing the role of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta that K. C. Kumaraswamy should have verified the CC No. 16/2010 Page 129 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 identity of the owner of the plot from the address mentioned in the sale deed. As per Cir. No. 155­2000­BC dt. 16.08.2000 which is Ext.PW38/A­4 (page 2), it was the duty of the accused to communicate with the owner of the property through registered letter to confirm the proof of residence and his willingness to offer the security as collateral. Therefore, these circumstances in the entire transactions clearly show the dishonest abuse of power by accused K.C. Kumaraswamy to obtain pecuniary benefit to accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. The prosecution has been further able to strengthen its case by proving the letter Ext.PW7/66 (D­73) dated 29.12.2000 written by the accused to Regional Manager requesting for the credit proposal for M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech specifically mentioning in Para­5 "the party is exclusively dealing with our bank and hence for any business needs they have to contact our bank only and at times we are agreeing to their request for exceeding which are being regularized almost within the stipulated time." Prior to sending of this letter, a process note Ext.PW7/34 (D­51) was prepared by PW­7. In column no. 9 of this process note, there is a column "Whether account is regular?" Below this column, PW­7 had written "exceedings not regularized." However, accused struck off this portion and CC No. 16/2010 Page 130 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 instead wrote a note in his pen at portion 'D' "Party had requested for exceedings for investment in business and we had accorded the request of exceedings in the account." In this manner, the fact that the accounts of M/s Global Marketing Co. were not regularized was concealed and rather a contrary report was written in the letter while making a case for credit proposals for M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech. Similarly, in another letter dated 15.1.2001 Ex.PW7/67 (D­74) to the Regional Manager in para­6, the accused had written that they had to allow the exceedings in the account a few times when they were having exigent business needs and "these exceedings were regularized almost within stipulated time." In this regard, I would refer to the evidence of PW­40 Prabhakar Shetty, the Chief Manager in the Regional Office of Syndicate Bank who has testified that as per statement of account of M/s Global Marketing Co. for the period 04.05.1999 to 28.05.2003 (Ext.PW7/27), credit was given for completing the debt of another account. The said transactions are of 17.08.2000; 21.09.2000; 29.09.2000 & 13.10.2000. It is testified that exceedings can be allowed by the Branch Manager and that exceedings could be allowed by Sr. Manager upto 10% of the sanctioned limit whereas in the present account that exceedings CC No. 16/2010 Page 131 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 were allowed to 80% of the sanctioned limit. The perusal of the entire statement on account starting from 29.09.2000 when it was enhanced upto Rs. 17 lacs till 29.12.2000 and 15.01.2001 (when the two letters Ext.PW7/66 and Ext.PW7/68 were written by accused to the Regional Office for credit proposal of M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech) would show that infact the credits were not regularized by M/s Global Marketing Co. Therefore, while recommending for grant of credit facility to M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech, the accused has mentioned a wrong fact and thereby the entire chain of sequence proves beyond reasonable doubt that he has abused his official position to gain monetary advantage to accused Ajay Kumar Mehndritta.

101. Ld. PP has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW­37 Happy Kamra who admitted that he had stated to CBI in statement Ext.PW37/A that Pradeep Kumaraswamy, the son of this accused was looking after the work of M/s Global Marketing Co. It is argued that this shows that accused was in conspiracy with the other co­accused persons in commission of the forgery, cheating etc. I am of the opinion that it might not be necessarily an evidence of the conspiracy but it may be the reason as to why accused dishonestly abused his position as a public servant to obtain the pecuniary advantage to accused CC No. 16/2010 Page 132 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. Accordingly, I convict the accused u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Evidence against accused G.C. Khanna (A­5) and his submissions:

102. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that accused G.C. Khanna impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar Jain as real owner of the property and signed the loan documents against the credit facilities availed by M/s Global Marketing Co. and M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech. Accused G.C. Khanna impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar Jain has also executed GPA/SPA & Will in favour of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta in respect of plot no. W­91, Greater Kailash, Part­II, New Delhi. It is submitted that the GEQD opinion dt. 30.07.2004 proved that accused G.C. Khanna impersonating himself as Ashok Kumar Jain executed SPA/GPA and Will in favour of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. Accused G.C. Khanna also executed documents impersonating himself as Ashok Kumar Jain against the credit facility availed by accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta and accused Neeru Pulsaria.

103. It is argued that PW3 Ashok Kumar Jain has proved that he never executed any SPA, GPA and Will in favour of Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta (A­1). PW36 Nirmal Singh has proved that CC No. 16/2010 Page 133 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 accused G.C. Khanna had executed SPA, GPA and Will in favour of Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta (A­1). It is also argued that PW7 E.P. Gopinathan has proved that accused G.C. Khanna executed loan documents as Ashok Kumar Jain against the credit facility availed by accused A.K. Mehndiratta & Neeru Pulsaria. It is proved by PW6 Ambuj Kumar Jain that no person by the name of Ashok Kumar Jain was residing at E­37, Kalkaji. However, the accused persons had mentioned the address of Ashok Kumar Jain as E­37, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

Evidence qua G. C. Khanna

104. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the specimen hand writing of accused G. C. Khanna was taken by the Investigating Officer without the permission of the Magistrate and therefore the same is not admissible in evidence against him. Ld. Counsel for accused G. C. Khanna has referred to Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Delhi High Court 2004(1) JCC 110 decided on 12.12.2003 and Keshav Dutt Vs. State of Haryana of Hon'ble Supreme Court (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases (CRI) 1345. So far as Keshav Dutt Vs State of Haryana is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the prosecution had not examined the hand writing expert in the court. Hence the facts of this case are not CC No. 16/2010 Page 134 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 applicable to the case in hand because the hand writing expert was examined in this court as PW42. However so far as the law laid down by Hon'ble Mr. Justic e O. P. Diwedi in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State is concerned, I would point out that this issue has been raised before our Hon'ble High Court time and again and there were divergent views of our own High Court on this issue but now in Bhupender Singh Vs. State the full Bench of Delhi High Court consisting Hon'ble Chief Justice Deepak Mishra and Mr. Justice Anil Kumar and Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2008 (decided on 30.9.2011) upheld the view taken by the single judge of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2005 decided on 25.3.2010) and rejected the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench in Satyawan Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No. 34/2001 decided on 9.7.2009). In Satyawan Vs State, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court had held that taking specimen writing without the order of the court is not legal and would not be admissible in evidence against accused. In Bhupender Singh Vs. State the full Bench in its decision dated 30.9.2011, clearly held that the view expressed in the decisions namely Satyawan Vs State is not the correct view. Hence it is clear that the CC No. 16/2010 Page 135 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 specimen hand writing can be taken from an accused by the Investigating Officer and same would be admissible in evidence even if such specimen hand writing had been taken by the Investigating Officer without permission of the Magistrate.

105. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused G.C. Khanna that whatever has been done it was done at the instance of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta. I have considered his submissions. It is clear that he is not the owner of Plot No. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi. PW­3 A.K. Jain has proved that he is the owner of the said plot. It is pertinent to note that PW3 A.K. Jain had come to the court with the original sale deed and had compared the same with the sale deed filed in the bank. It is clear that the sale deed filed by accused G.C. Khanna in the bank was a forged document. PW­18 Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sub Registrar in Asaf Ali Road brought the record and proved the correct record of the sale deed which was presented by the parties in the Office of Sub Registrar and which was seized by the CBI vide seizure memo dt. 05.02.2004 Ext.PW18/A. These evidences are enough to prove that accused G.C. Khanna had presented the forged sale deed. PW­7 has testified that accused G.C. Khanna had come to the bank with the sale deed and impersonated as A.K. Jain, the owner of the said property. Accused Ajay Kumar CC No. 16/2010 Page 136 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Mehndiratta (who testified as DW­1) stated that it was accused G.C. Khanna who impersonated as A.K. Jain and executed GPA, SPA and Will in his favour. In these circumstances, the charges against accused G.C. Khanna having used this forged sale deed as genuine for obtaining credit facilities for accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta and accused Neeru Pulsaria stands fully proved. I accordingly convict him u/s 471 IPC. However, there is no evidence on record to show that this forgery was committed by accused G.C. Khanna. He however had impersonated as A.K. Jain, the owner of the property no. W­91, GK­II, New Delhi and accordingly, I convict him u/s 419 IPC. He forged the Will purported to have been executed by A. K. Jain in favour of accused Ajay Kumar Mehndiratta and thereby committed an offence u/s 467 IPC. I further convict him u/s 120­B IPC r/w Section 420,120­B IPC.

Conclusion:

106. In view of the above discussions, accused Neeru Pulassria and Tarun Kr. Aggarwal stand acquitted.

107. Accused Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta stands convicted under the substantial offences under Section 420 and 471 IPC. He us further convicted under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420/467/471 IPC. This accused is further convicted CC No. 16/2010 Page 137 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

108. Accused K. C. Kumaraswamy is convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

109. Accused G. C. Khanna is convicted under the substantial offences under Section 419/471 and 467 IPC. He is further convicted under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC. Announced in the open court on 26.11.2011.

(VINOD KUMAR) Spl. Judge, CBI­II Rohini, Delhi CC No. 16/2010 Page 138 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)­II, ROHINI, DELHI CC No. 16/2010 C B I Vs (1) Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Prop. M/s Baba Bhaiyan Webtech R/o 75, Behra Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.

(2) K. C. Kumaraswamy S/o Late Sh. S. K. Chandrasekharan R/o A­202, Dhanshreya, Sector­17, Syndicate Bank Officers Qtrs., Vashi Mumbai.

                   (3)       Gian Chand Khanna
                             S/o Sh. R. C. Khanna

R/o W­103, Greater Kailash, Part­I, New Delhi.

ORDER ON SENTENCE 30.11.2011 Present : Sh. Amrit Pal Singh, Ld. P. P. for CBI.

Convict Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta on bail with counsel Sh. S. P. Ahluwalia, adv.

Convict K. C. Kumaraswamy on bail with counsel Sh. R. S. Raju, adv.

Convict Gian Chand Khanna from J.C. With counsel Sh. Wiqar Ahmad, adv.

Arguments on sentence heard. Ld. Public Prosecutor prays for full dose of sentence in view of the nature of the offences.

On the other hand, Sh. S. P. Ahluwalia, adv. for convict Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta submits that the convict is not a hard core criminal. It is CC No. 16/2010 Page 139 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 submitted that he always had the intention to repay the money to the bank and therefore he has reached a one time settlement with the Syndicate Bank and has deposited the entire amount with the bank as per the settlement. It is further submitted by Sh. S. P. Ahluwalia, adv. that convict Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta has remained in jail from 22.5.2003 to 2.8.2003 for 73 days.

It is argued by Sh. R. S. Raju, adv. for convict K. C. Kumaraswamy that convict is now a senior citizen and that a lenient view should be taken in view of the family responsibilities.

It is argued by Sh. Wiqar Ahmad, adv. for convict Gian Chand Khanna that he is in judicial custody since 10.2.2004 to 7.4.2004 and thereafter he is in judicial custody since 15.9.2011. Thereby he remained in judicial custody for about six months and 13 days.. It is further submitted that this convict is 70 years old and his parents are more than 90 years old and that his old parents are dependent upon this convict. It is submitted that a lenient view may be taken against this convict.

I have considered the submissions. Although the offences proved in this case are of very serious nature but the fact that convict Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta has settled the matter with the bank and has deposited the settlement amount with the bank, is a fact which cannot be ignored while awarding the sentence. Further convict K. C. Kumaraswamy has not been convicted in any offences except under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore harsh view, while sentencing, would not be appropriate. So far as the role of convict Gian Chand Khanna is concerned, CC No. 16/2010 Page 140 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 I am of the opinion that the sentences, which may be awarded to him, should be less than the sentences, which are awarded to convict Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta for the simple reason that the real monitory benefit of the offence was taken by Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta. In these circumstances, I sentence the convicts as under :­

1. Sentence of convict Ajay Kumar Mehandiratta

(i) I sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420/467/471 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(ii)I further sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 420 IPC and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(iii)I further sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 471 IPC and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(iv)I further sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Sentence of convict Gian Chand Khanna CC No. 16/2010 Page 141 / 143 CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011

(i) I sentence the convict to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 419 IPC.

(ii)I further sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(iii)I further sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ under Section 467 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(iv)I further sentence the convict to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ under Section 120­B IPC read with Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Sentence of convict K. C. Kumaraswamy I sentence the convict K. C. Kumarswamy to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall further under simple imprisonment for one month.

All the sentences of the above stated convicts shall run concurrently. It is submitted that the convict Ajay Kumar Mahendiratta remained in judicial custody from 22.5.2003 to 2.8.2003 i.e. for 73 days.

CC No. 16/2010 Page 142 / 143

CBI Vs Ajay Kumar Mahandiratta etc. Judgement dt. 26.11.2011 Convict K. C. Kumaraswamy is stated to have remained judicial custody from 16.7.2003 to 2.9.2003.

Convict Gian Chand Khanna is stated to have remained in judicial custody since 10.2.2004 to 7.4.2004 and thereafter he is in judicial custody since 15.9.2011. Thereby he remained in judicial custody for about six months and thirteen days.

Benefit under Section 428 CrPC be given accordingly to the convicts. Sentence warrants be prepared. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on 30.11.2011.

(VINOD KUMAR) Spl. Judge, CBI­II Rohini Courts, Delhi CC No. 16/2010 Page 143 / 143